Bill O'Reilly is 'da man — especially if you ask him. Think Progress (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/01/oreilly-lowers-gas-prices/) reports this morning that in an interview yesterday on Fox News's Neil Cavuto, "Bill O’Reilly claimed that his reporting intimidated oil company CEOs into lowering gasoline prices":

O’REILLY: I have guys inside the five major oil companies - my father used to work for one of those oil companies by the way - who have told me that in those meetings they look for every way to jack up oil prices after Katrina, every way, when they didn’t have to. They got scared because of my reporting and reporting of some others. They said, “Uh ho.”

CAVUTO: So wait a minute, you’re not, you’re taking credit for gas prices being down from where they are?

O’REILLY: I said my reporting and some reporting of others. They got scared.


http://thinkprogress.org/wp-images/upload/Oreillygasprices.JPG (http://streaming.americanprogress.org/ThinkProgress/2005/oreilly_gas.320.240.mov.html)
Watch in Quicktime (http://streaming.americanprogress.org/ThinkProgress/2005/oreilly_gas.320.240.mov.html)


So not only is Bill O’Reilly saving Christmas (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/29/oreilly-teaches-viewers-the-true-meaning-of-christmas/), he’s making it cheaper for you to get to the mall. Is there anything this guy can’t do?
He's much too humble to ever tell you this, but Bill O'Reilly is "apparently" omniscient and omnipotent. The only thing holding him back from being a diety is omnipresence — unless his omnipresence on the airwaves counts. Is Bill O'Reilly a god?


(Originally posted here (http://scribeokc.blogspot.com/2005/12/is-bill-oreilly-god.html))

He gets his point across and does it well. Even if you disagree with him you clearly understand his viewpoints.

his point are almost always wrong.

and his arrogance is of the chart

his point are almost always wrong.

and his arrogance is of the chart


what points are you talking about?

He is arrogant, i'll give you that.

He gets his point across and does it well. Even if you disagree with him you clearly understand his viewpoints.
Exactly. He may be a little arrogant, but most of the time he is correct, and he always makes good points. Bill never claimed to be a god......that comes from the perception of others who disagree with him and won't admit that he is an intelligent, truthful, man.

his point are almost always wrong.

and his arrogance is of the chart
Incorrect. He is right almost all of the time, and because he is, the democrats and the liberals shake in their shoes.

I personally like to hear what O'Reilly has to say and I do beleive he is right most of the time. I also like Limbaugh and Nugent because they are willing to stand up for what is good for this country.

if he had anything to do with the price drop he needs to get back into the game, becuse they are back up again.

...that comes from the perception of others who disagree with him and won't admit that he is an intelligent, truthful, man.
Intelligent? Sure.
A man? I would think so.
Truthful? ROFL................. now that's funny.....

Intelligent? Sure.
A man? I would think so.
Truthful? ROFL................. now that's funny.....
Cant take the truth..huh?

No, apparently Bill O'Reilly can't. He certainly has a hard time telling it.

Cant take the truth..huh?
I have this funny thing where I expect the "truth" to be true. Just the way I am.

I have this funny thing where I expect the "truth" to be true. Just the way I am.
But how do you know the Bible is true?

How do you know it's not?

How do you know it's not?
My point exactly, none of us were there to witness the events that it says took place so I cant say it is or isnt. So, how can someone say O'Reilly is telling the truth or not, I mean, what would he gain by lying?

But how do you know the Bible is true?
"Know" with any certainty by deductive reasoning standards? I don't. However, every historical document has to be addressed in terms of accuracy of recorded accounts, congruence with other historical documents, etc. As a historical document, it is considered quite accurate (true). From the standpoint of proven prophecy, it stands out beyond any book. Because it was written over such a long period of time by so many different authors yet carries a very consistent message, there is reason for me to believe it is beyond an earthly book.

There are plenty of measures to determine the dependability of the bible as historical text (which could be a very long discussion and doesn't really belong in this thread) but that isnt' really the question for most people. The biggest question comes to the claims of deity and the miracles. I will readily admit that I take some aspects of scripture on faith. The bible has never proven wrong to me in its message. It is often misinterpreted and because there appear to be some transcription issues, many will claim inconsistencies. I have not seen any unexplainable untruths in the bible therefore it is a dependable document to me. Not everyone will come to the same conclusion. That is no concern of mine. However, I have spent a considerable amount of time looking at the bible to address whether its content and message are true. My conclusion is that it is.

I am not sure how this parallels to Bill O'Reilly who is easily proven wrong on many occassions. Many of his supporters will call them honest mistakes (I suspect this takes a bit of faith on their part). I see him as an arrogant, self important loud mouth who makes this country more polarized just by opening his mouth. I don't think the truth is nearly as important to him as disparaging those who don't agree with his viewpoints.

My point exactly, none of us were there to witness the events that it says took place so I cant say it is or isnt. But the bible is an account of the people who were witness to the events being recorded. This is how historical documents work. Is there any historical document that you would consider accurate? How do you know the civil war happened? How do you know George Washington was a real person or was ever really our first President?


So, how can someone say O'Reilly is telling the truth or not, I mean, what would he gain by lying?
Because his truths are measurable as fact or fiction. Case in point.

O'REILLY: Under President Clinton, the tax rate climbed higher than at any time in history except in World War II.

Year - Income Bracket - Tax Rate
1955 - 44,000 - 52,000 - 59%
1965 - 52,000 - 64,000 - 53%
1975 - 88,000 - 100,000 - 60%
1985 - 169,020 and up - 50%

Clinton raised the rate to 39.6 percent for couples making over $250,000

His statement was simply untrue. Was he uninformed or trying to mislead? What does he have to gain, an uninformed public who will continue to ignore history and help him push his Libertarian ideals.

[QUOTE=Didaskalos] How do you know the civil war happened? How do you know George Washington was a real person or was ever really our first President?
QUOTE]
Because there are photographs of both that to me are pretty much proof and way too many artifacts for me to deny it. So now, which version of the Bible is accurate?
Dont you think that over the years and as many versions of it that have been written there is alot of room for doubt? I mean, several people could re write a Dr. Suess book and change this or that but in the end still get the same message across, doesnt mean it's true. I dont doubt the Bible and I would like to think it is true, I am just looking at things different ways. By the way, thanks for the stats, what would we do with ya. :LolLolLol

There are photographs of George Washington??? Wow, that's amazing, considering the camera hadn't been invented yet.

Because there are photographs of both that to me are pretty much proof and way too many artifacts for me to deny it. So history is accurate back to the point it was photographed? I tend to allow for a broader time in history based on historians accounts but I am just trusting that way I guess


So now, which version of the Bible is accurate? The most accurate is of course going to be the first account written (speaking of books of the bible rather than the bible as a whole). I am sure many Christians on this forum will cringe but I will easily admit that I have no confidence that every version of the bible sitting on store shelves is completely accurate in its transcription/translations. I, for one, do not think this has to impact its message. Still, I think there have been quite a few discoveries of ancient writings that bring credibility to scripture (not the least of which being the Dead Sea Scrolls). I happen to read (primarily) the New International Version because the team they put together to publish it was quite impressive. At the time, they also had the Dead Sea Scrolls at their disposal as well as very early translations of the bible which are not nearly as far removed from the original writings. I trust it as the most accurate english translation. I do however put some trust in scholars who are able to read and understand much earlier greek and latin translations of the bible.



Dont you think that over the years and as many versions of it that have been written there is alot of room for doubt? I mean, several people could re write a Dr. Suess book and change this or that but in the end still get the same message across, doesnt mean it's true. Are you trying to convince me that the bible is wrong or trying to convince yourself? I am convinced it is true and you seem less convinced. As this thread is not about biblical defense, I do not want to go on for paragraphs providing a defense but you are welcome to start a thread and I will happily go through the tedious process of showing the accuracy of scripture. In short, yes, there is room for doubt. This is the reason I, as a natural skeptic, have spent so much time looking into the issue. I wasn't overly convinced until I had invested the time.


By the way, thanks for the stats, what would we do with ya. :LolLolLol I guess I find stats entirely more interesting than others do. Of course, my studies were in the social sciences and they helped convince me that everyone has a theory but until one tries to measure its accuracy, it is fairly worthless.

There are photographs of George Washington??? Wow, that's amazing, considering the camera hadn't been invented yet.
I meant of the Cival war..DUH..and what would we do with you also, thanks for setting me straight, I can now go on about my day and know that I have someone looking out for me.

I meant of the Cival war..DUH..and what would we do with you also, thanks for setting me straight, I can now go on about my day and know that I have someone looking out for me.
You did say there were photographs of both and I only referred to the civil war once... so was the DUH applied to the right person??? I wanted you to feel all warm and cozy knowing there are two people looking out for you.

I meant of the Cival war..DUH
I certainly could have misunderstood. Let's go back and look at what you said...




How do you know the civil war happened? How do you know George Washington was a real person or was ever really our first President?

Because there are photographs of both that to me are pretty much proof and way too many artifacts for me to deny it.
You may have mispoke, but I didn't misunderstand what you actually said.



thanks for setting me straight, I can now go on about my day and know that I have someone looking out for me.
Anytime! Glad I could help make this a batter day for you.

If I might digress from the historical accuracy of the Bible for a moment, I'd like to comment on Bill O'Reilly. I'm cable-impaired, so I haven't seen his TV show, but the local paper carries his column every Sunday, along with Mary What's-Her-Name from Texas, some liberal columnist. I have to say that O'Reilly's columns are almost always well-written and thought out, even if I don't always agree with them. By contrast, Mary Motormouth's pieces are strident, often-times vicious liberal attacks on anything to the right of Joseph Stalin. In her world, a conservative can do no right or good, and a liberal can do no wrong. Several times in O'Reilly's columns, I've seen him take conservatives to task. He calls it as he sees it, and if the conservatives screw up, he says so. If he seems to "attack" liberals more than conservatives, it's because they screwup more!

Mark

If he seems to "attack" liberals more than conservatives, it's because they screwup more!

Mark
If you honestly believe that then his particular 'bait and switch' style must really be working.

I am sure I can find hundreds of liberals that are more attacking and unreasonable than Bill O'Reilly, I am not sure what that proves about Bill O'Reilly being untruthful.

If your definition of truthfulness is "does his/her viewpoint" agree with mine", then perhaps O'Reilly is "untruthful" in your eyes. However, the major complaint I've read against O'Reilly is his "attack dog" manner. I simply pointed out that, contrary to these accusations, I've found him to be well-spoken and reasonable. As I stated, I don't always agree with his opinions, but I haven't found the mistakes in his facts. I offered by contrast a leading liberal columnist who's columns are almost always mean-spirited and vicious.

Mark

A leading liberal columnist that you can't remember her name?

Bill O'Reilly is untruthful, not because his views may or may not different from mine, but because his facts are often in error, whether intentionally or out of ignorance, I can't say for sure. Perhaps since all you read is his written column which has been reviewed, edited and sometimes corrected before publication, he indeed appears more truthful. His radio broadcasts and FNC broadcasts regularly include errant information. I can separate his factual errors from his disagreeable viewpoint.

You did say there were photographs of both and I only referred to the civil war once... so was the DUH applied to the right person??? I wanted you to feel all warm and cozy knowing there are two people looking out for you.
Yes the DUH was applied to the right person in my book. I feel so warm and cozy now that I know I have two people looking out for me..but I should have also known you two would call each other again for backup..see that is one thing at least I do not need is back up...I may be wrong alot of times but I at least dont need someone else to watch my back..I am a big boy and can handle myself..some cant.

Anytime! Glad I could help make this a batter day for you.
Thank you Dad..now can I have the keys to the car please?

Since you want proof about whether the bible is true or not, how about some proof that you know that Didaskalos and I called one another to watch the other's back.

So, using your logic, if someone happens to agree with you and support your position, does that mean you can't handle yourself and that you're not a big boy?

Thank you Dad..now can I have the keys to the car please?
No. You're much too irresponsible and immature.

Back to F60's point, here's just one recent example:




http://members.cox.net/scribeokc/news_graphics/DailyShow_XmasClip.jpg (http://mediamatters.org/items/200512080005)

On the December 7 edition of Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, host Jon Stewart took Fox News' Bill O'Reilly to task for his misleading use of a Daily Show clip (documented by The Brad Blog weblog here (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002116.htm) and by Media Matters for America here (http://mediamatters.org/items/200512060004)). During the December 2 broadcasts of O'Reilly's Fox News talk show The O'Reilly Factor and his Fox News radio show The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, O'Reilly used a year-old video clip from The Daily Show to demonstrate what he claims is an ongoing "war on Christmas (http://mediamatters.org/items/200511100014)" by secular forces. However, O'Reilly falsely told his radio listeners the clip had aired the day before and left his cable viewers with a similar misleading impression.
To demonstrate O'Reilly's deception, Stewart invited Daily Show correspondent Samantha Bee, who was featured in the December 2004 segment O'Reilly excerpted, onto the show. Bee, who is pregnant, and according to a November 13 New York Times article (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0610F7395A0C708DDDA80994DD4044 82) (subscription only), is due in January, compared her current appearance with the one shown in the clip, pronouncing it "unmistakable" that the clip was in fact "from last December". She cited as evidence "[m]y highlights." Bee then excused herself, saying "my water just broke."

Following Bee's departure from the stage, Stewart stated satirically: "[A]pparently, we liberal secular ***s here at Comedy Central ... have fired a devastating year-old six-second-long joke that doesn't barely even make any sense to us anymore across the bow of Christianity."

(Courtesy Media Matters (http://mediamatters.org/items/200512080005))


Bill was either ignorant (I doubt) or downright dishonest. I report, you decide.

[QUOTE=Scribe]No. You're much too irresponsible and immature.[/QUOT
:tweeted:

If your definition of truthfulness is "does his/her viewpoint" agree with mine", then perhaps O'Reilly is "untruthful" in your eyes. However, the major complaint I've read against O'Reilly is his "attack dog" manner. I simply pointed out that, contrary to these accusations, I've found him to be well-spoken and reasonable. As I stated, I don't always agree with his opinions, but I haven't found the mistakes in his facts. I offered by contrast a leading liberal columnist who's columns are almost always mean-spirited and vicious.

Mark
My definition of truthful has nothing to do with viewpoints. I agree with O'Reilly's facts the vast majority of the time. However, he quite often lies and even if a person lies let's say 1 in 10 times, it gives me reason to be suspicious and to call that person dishonest when their lie intentionally misleads from a supposed journalistic type position (one reason he has a staff of fact checkers to ensure he isn't wrong).

You offered an opposing columnist who by comparision may very well be more attacking (that I am not disputing). I offered a case where Bill O'Reilly offered a specific statement regarding tax rates which is easily see as true or false. In this case, his "facts" were quite wrong. What I am confident is that the vast majority of red staters are too lazy to check the facts themselves and assume Bill is truthful - thus the deception is effective.

see that is one thing at least I do not need is back up No, you need it, you just don't realize it...
I may be wrong alot of times We do agree on something...
but I at least dont need someone else to watch my back..I am a big boy and can handle myself..some cant. I have not called on anyone today but if it makes you feel better to avoid discussing the issue with distraction, be my guest. I have become quite accustomed to those who refuse to discuss the issue attempt to distract from the issue.

For F60: here's another example reported just today (http://www.wnem.com/Global/story.asp?S=4235657):




A Mid-Michigan Township makes national news but there's a problem, local officials say the whole thing was made up.

Bill O'Reilly is making the claim that Saginaw Township officials banned residents from wearing red and green during the holiday season. Local officials say he's dead wrong.

Syndicated controversial talk show host Bill O’Reilly said on his radio show:


“In Saginaw , Michigan , the township opposes red and green clothing…on Anyone, In Saginaw Township they basically said anybody, we don’t want you wearing red or green. I would dress up from head to toe in red to green if I were in Saginaw Michigan .”

-- Bill O’Reilly



WNEM TV-5 Talked to Saginaw Township supervisor Tim Braun who says O’Reilly’s comments are flat out not true. Braun goes on to say the township hall has red and green Christmas lights adorning the building at night.

On December 12th the Fox News Channel which broadcasts O’Reilly’s Cable TV show “The O’Reilly Factor” told TV5 it was a radio issue and had nothing to do with the Fox News Channel. TV5 is contacting O’Reilly’s radio producers for their side of the story.

[QUOTE=Didaskalos]No, you need it, you just don't realize it... QUOTE]
No..I dont need it..I have always fought my own battles in life..thats what comes from living in a non shelterd and realisitc world..ya learn to fight your own battles.

For F60: here's another example reported just today (http://www.wnem.com/Global/story.asp?S=4235657):


Woo Hoo...Michigan made the news again. Saginaw is beautiful this time of year, good place to go ice fishing for some good winter Perch. Ya need alot of them to make a meal, but man you cant beat the taste. :kicking:

Another example...

From Media Matters (http://mediamatters.org/items/200512130005):




Bill O'Reilly (http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/billoreilly) falsely claimed that the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) no longer offers Christmas postage stamps with a "spiritual" theme. On the December 9 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, a caller asserted that "I was politely told by all the postal workers that I spoke with at the various post offices that the only stamp they offered was 'Holiday Cookies.' " O'Reilly replied, "I think it's the first time in my lifetime that the United States Postal Service has not had a spiritual stamp for people like you who would like them," adding that the purported lack of a spiritual stamp was "insulting you and your beliefs ... because your spiritual stamp is in context to the celebration of Christmas."

In fact, in addition to the "Holiday Cookies (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://shop.usps.com/cgi-bin/vsbv/postal_store_non_ssl/display_products/productCategory.jsp?prodCat=/Stamps+by+Subject/Holiday+Cookies)" stamps the caller cited, the USPS continues to offer the commemorative "Madonna and Child (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://shop.usps.com/cgi-bin/vsbv/postal_store_non_ssl/display_products/productDetail.jsp?OID=4849178)" stamp. The self-adhesive 37-cent "Madonna and Child" is available through the USPS website in individual books of 20 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://shop.usps.com/cgi-bin/vsbv/postal_store_non_ssl/display_products/productDetail.jsp?OID=4849178), or in larger packs containing five books each (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://shop.usps.com/cgi-bin/vsbv/postal_store_non_ssl/display_products/productDetail.jsp?OID=4849179). A December 2 article (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05336/616063.stm) in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette about "the Internet and public conversation awash with horror that no new religiously themed stamp was printed for the 2005 season" quoted Diana Svoboda, a spokeswoman for the USPS' Pittsburgh district, stating that reports of the Postal Service planning to discontinue religiously themed Christmas stamps were "absolutely not true." The Post-Gazette article went on to report that although a new design is typically chosen for the "Madonna and Child" every year, this year USPS opted not to print a new design, due to an overstock of 37-cent "Madonna and Child" stamps left over from the previous Christmas season. USPS is increasing (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10051858/) the price of first-class stamps to 39 cents on January 8, and "[t]he Postal Service ... didn't want a fresh crop of outdated stamps sitting in the drawers for next year," the Post-Gazette reported.

http://mediamatters.org/static/images/home/oreilly-madonna-370.jpg

And another...

From Media Matters (http://mediamatters.org/items/200512130006):



On December 9, Bill O'Reilly (http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/billoreilly) falsely claimed on both Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor and the nationally syndicated The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly that the Plano Independent School District (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.pisd.edu/) (Texas) "told students they couldn't wear red and green because they were Christmas colors." He labeled the alleged ban "fascism." On December 12, the school district released an official statement (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.pisd.edu/news/archive/2005-06/oreilly.report.shtml) by Superintendent of Schools Dr. Doug Otto refuting O'Reilly's contention:

"The school district does not restrict students or staff from wearing certain color clothes during holiday times or any other school days," noted Dr. Otto, who said that the school district's attorney has requested that Mr. O'Reilly retract the statement.


That's at least four examples just in the last couple of weeks.

No, you need it, you just don't realize it...
No..I dont need it..I have always fought my own battles in life..thats what comes from living in a non shelterd and realisitc world..ya learn to fight your own battles.
Neither do I - no matter how many times you would like to contend it. If you would like to stop making that reference, I will feel no need to post 'off topic' remarks that have nothing to do with the discussion, otherwise, you can expect them in return as you clearly enjoy throwing them at me so often.

As I have partially explained in the past that my life has been anything resembling sheltered or unrealistic, I will assume that was directed in general rather than specifically at me. And to be clear... I have absolutely no issue fighting my own battles. I just prefer the battle be based on the actual topic and the issue rather than distractions.

Back to the topic... as is being clearly shown... O'Reilly is untruthful.

FAIR (http://www.fair.org/index.php) (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) has an interesting article that seems relevant to the claims that Bill O'Reilly is truthful (or conversely that he is untruthful).


The "Oh Really?" Factor (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1108)
Bill O'Reilly spins facts and statistics

By Peter Hart
If it’s spin to back up your arguments with bogus facts and statistics, and to dismiss numbers that don’t fit in with your preconceptions, then Bill O’Reilly’s

Fox News Channel show isn’t, as he repeatedly claims, a "no-spin zone"-- it’s Spin City.

During an interview with National Organization for Women president Kim Gandy (O’Reilly Factor, 2/5/02), O’Reilly claimed that "58 percent of single-mom homes are on welfare." When Gandy questioned that figure, O’Reilly held firm: "You can’t say no, Miss Gandy. That’s the stat. You can’t just dismiss it. . . . It’s 58 percent. That’s what it is from the federal government."

But by the next broadcast (2/6/02), O’Reilly was revising his accounting: "At this point, we have this from Washington, and it’s bad. 52 percent of families receiving public assistance are headed by a single mother, 52 percent." Not only is that a different number, it’s the reverse of the statistic he offered the previous night-- not the percentage of households headed by single mothers that receive welfare, but the percentage of families receiving public assistance headed by single mothers. That’s a distinction that O’Reilly did not attempt to clarify; he seemed unapologetic about emphatically putting forward an inaccurate statistic the night before.

The following night (2/7/02), O’Reilly came up with more solid figures, but they bore no resemblance to his original numbers: About 14 percent of single mothers receive federal welfare benefits, he now said-- less than one-fourth of his earlier claim. (He suggested that food stamps ought to be considered a kind of welfare, but that only gets him to 33 percent-- still 25 percentage points short.) O’Reilly explained that "it’s really hard to get a stat to say how many single moms percentage-wise get government assistance," though he’d found it easy enough to pull one out of the air just three nights earlier.

Suspect certainty

There’s a valuable lesson here for Factor watchers: When O’Reilly is most certain, you should be most skeptical. On another show (2/26/01), O’Reilly explained to Florida state senator Kendrick Meek that, thanks to Gov. Jeb Bush’s "One Florida" program, 37 percent of students at Florida universities were black: "Thirty-seven percent. That’s much higher than the population, the black population, of Florida.

Bush is doing a good job for you guys and you’re vilifying him." When Meek challenged those numbers, O’Reilly insisted they were "dead on." Dead wrong is more like it: Total minority enrollment for the freshman class entering in 2000 was 37 percent (Florida Times-Union, 8/30/00)-- black enrollment was about 18 percent.

Sometimes a guest who sticks to his or her guns can keep O’Reilly’s audience from being misinformed. When the host claimed (5/8/01) that the United States "give[s] far and away more tax money to foreign countries than anyone else. . . . Nobody else even comes close to us," Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies was thankfully on hand to explain that U.S. contributions per capita were lower than those of any member of the European Union. "That’s not true," O’Reilly inaccurately responded. Actually, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, in 2000 the U.S. gave only 0.1 percent of its Gross National Income as official development aid-- less than Italy, the least generous EU nation. Denmark gave 10 times as much on a per capita basis. Even in real terms, Japan in 2000 gave away a third more aid, even though its economy was less than half as large.

O’Reilly rewrote diplomatic history during an interview with James Zogby of the Arab American Institute (4/2/02). After Zogby argued that Israeli settlements were an obstacle to peace between Israel and Palestine, O’Reilly countered that during the Camp David negotiations in July 2000, the offer made by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak "would have given 90 percent of those settlements back"-- an idea he credited to "what every single American expert who has seen that says." In fact, O’Reilly got the proportion of settlements Barak was prepared to give up almost backwards: He promised Israelis that any deal with the Palestinians would involve "80 percent of the settlers in settlement blocks under our sovereignty" (Jerusalem Post, 9/13/00). When Zogby pointed out O’Reilly’s error, the host said he would welcome any former diplomats who could prove him wrong: "I’ll put them on tomorrow," he said-- but didn’t.

O’Reilly frequently refuses to believe his guests-- even when they cite a source. When one Factor interviewee remarked (3/1/02) that "60 percent of all people will live in poverty for one year of their life," O’Reilly shot back: "Not in the United States. . . . No, that’s bogus. I mean, that’s a socialist stat. You can believe it if you want to, but it’s not true." When the guest explained that the number comes from research at Cornell University, O’Reilly shot back: "Well, what more do I have to say?"-- as if any information coming from an Ivy League institution had to be wrong.

O’Reilly can be quite fond of a statistic, however, when he thinks it makes a point for him. "Here’s the statistic that tells me American society and the system we have in place works for both blacks and whites," he told the NAACP’s Walter Fields (5/15/01). "Eighty percent, all right, 80 percent of what whites earn, blacks earn if they stay together in a committed relationship, whether it’s marriage or living together. So if a black man and woman are married and stay together, they earn 80 percent of what white couples earn. And the reason it isn’t 100 percent is because more blacks live in the south where the salaries are lower. That tells me that the American system, the capitalistic system works and is fair. Where it’s broken down—all right, you may disagree with that, but that stat is rock solid."

That stat-- which O’Reilly has brought up on at least three further occasions (3/25/02, 3/27/02, 4/3/02)-- is actually out of date; the latest census figures (Current Population Reports, 1999) show that black married couples make 87 percent of what white married couples do. But O’Reilly’s idea that blacks overall are poorer because they have chosen not to marry doesn’t hold water; black single mothers make only 65 percent of what white single mothers do, even though they have the same family structure. And the notion that living in the South explains blacks’ lower incomes is a fantasy; blacks in the South, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, actually make more money than blacks in the Northeast.
more> (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1108)

Yes the DUH was applied to the right person in my book. I feel so warm and cozy now that I know I have two people looking out for me..but I should have also known you two would call each other again for backup..see that is one thing at least I do not need is back up...I may be wrong alot of times but I at least dont need someone else to watch my back..I am a big boy and can handle myself..some cant.
And I thought I was the only one that noticed that. After reading through many posts, I noticed the similarities, and how one always backs up the other one. Keep up the good work, mariner. Like you, I don't need anyone to back me up either.

A leading liberal columnist that you can't remember her name?

Yeah. There are also Top Ten Hip-Hop groups whose names I can't remember either. In both cases, it's because their products, be it hip-hop music or liberal screeds, err, columns, offer nothing of interest or relevance. But I've seen her stuff around, and she's been quoted or referred to in some other stuff I've read, so I know she's well known. To satisfy your curiosity, I dug out the Sunday paper and looked. It's Molly Ivans. :rolleyes: I'll give her this: she doesn't make any factual errors in her columns, they're fact-free! :D

Mark

Randy, that's funny, by your all's definition, you're backing up mariner right now. Did you guys call each other for help?

I find it even funnier that you both choose to distract from the actual discussion by accusing Didaskalos and me of collaborating.

First of all, you have no actual proof (although that's never stopped this country from making false accusations); because we happen to be presenting similar and/or supporting arguments, you both assume (remember the old saying about "assume") that we are coordinating our "attacks." We can safely say that you, like your president, have faulty intelligence.

Second, even if we were collaborating, what difference does it make? Two people cannot be in agreement when they comment on these threads? When Intrepid or Doug Loudenback or Patrick agrees with me, are we collaborating too? If MadMonk supports something mariner62 is saying, are you all collaborating (i.e. calling each other up on the phone and planning strategy, as mariner62 repeatedly (and falsely) accuses Didaskalos and me for doing)?

It's the same old argument mariner62 always brings up when he's got nothing else to bring to the table. I expect he'll continue to do it until his last breath; that's all he's got. If that's what makes him feel better, "I'm here for ya, buddy!"

Yeah. There are also Top Ten Hip-Hop groups whose names I can't remember either. In both cases, it's because their products, be it hip-hop music or liberal screeds, err, columns, offer nothing of interest or relevance. But I've seen her stuff around, and she's been quoted or referred to in some other stuff I've read, so I know she's well known. To satisfy your curiosity, I dug out the Sunday paper and looked. It's Molly Ivans. :rolleyes: I'll give her this: she doesn't make any factual errors in her columns, they're fact-free! :D

Mark
I have to confess that I do not read Molly Ivans. In fact, of all the liberal writers in the country, she's not among the Top Ten of those quoted or otherwise referenced by many of the other liberals. Given that fact, I'm not sure how she could be a leading liberal writer. Since I haven't read her stuff, I'm not about to defend her. She may very well be as guilty of the O'Reilly style of hyperbolic, "fact-free" commentary. Could you cite some examples of her errors as I've cited for you concerning O'Reilly?

To satisfy your curiosity, I dug out the Sunday paper and looked. It's Molly Ivans. :rolleyes: I'll give her this: she doesn't make any factual errors in her columns, they're fact-free! :D

Mark
I assume you are referring to Molly Ivins - former co-editor of the Texas Observer. I don't read much of her work so not sure I can comment much on her style. In fact, I had to look her up on Wikipedia to see if there was anything of note that I would recognize (didn't recognize any of her books even). I find it interesting that the following quote exists in Wikipedia (not that it serves as anything more than opinion) - "Ivins, who is known for her colloquial, humorous style". Perhaps what is so offensive in her writing is that she doesn't step in line with administration propaganda.

Still, comparing one of the most recognizable loud mouths on television, radio and print to a much more obsure independent columnist from the left speaks a lot to why so many believe there is an actual left wing media bias in this country.

Ok, assuming I will grant you that this one independent left wing columnist is attacking and does not support her opinion with facts, how does this change the fact that Bill O'Reilly is misleading and dishonest? I am providing examples to show how it is true and yet no matter how many examples are provided, right wingers are determined to view his as truthful. Telling...

And I thought I was the only one that noticed that. After reading through many posts, I noticed the similarities, and how one always backs up the other one. Keep up the good work, mariner. Like you, I don't need anyone to back me up either.
:tiphat:

It's the same old argument mariner62 always brings up when he's got nothing else to bring to the table. I expect he'll continue to do it until his last breath; that's all he's got. If that's what makes him feel better, "I'm here for ya, buddy!"
I have alot to bring to the table, some people just could not handle it.As for me now, I am going to refrain before I get tossed off this board. Some one has to be the bigger man here, may as well be me :backtotop

To this point, you've brought very little, so I welcome you bringing more relevant information to the table.