[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

OT--USA military shouldve helped get the people out of nO BEFORE the fact
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 17 of 23 « First‹ Previous 15  16  17  18  19 Next ›Last »
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
Knight
Posts: 22775
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 7/21/2005
Member: #968
9/7/2005  5:26 PM
Brown is capable, or else just lucky these last 4 years. Take a look at Alabama and Mississippi if you want to see what FEMA is capable of when there is some semblance of state government. FEMA's role is to support state's recovery efforts. They are not there to replace state governments.

[Edited by - Knight on 09-07-2005 5:27 PM]
"He only went to Georgia Tech for one year, and that's an engineering school." -LB
AUTOADVERT
Rich
Posts: 27410
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 12/30/2003
Member: #511
USA
9/7/2005  5:34 PM
Posted by Knight:

Brown is capable, or else just lucky these last 4 years. Take a look at Alabama and Mississippi if you want to see what FEMA is capable of when there is some semblance of state government. FEMA's role is to support state's recovery efforts. They are not there to replace state governments.

[Edited by - Knight on 09-07-2005 5:27 PM]

What are you talking about? Fact: FEMA has been dismantled. Fact: No city has ever been totally destoyed like New Orleans. When that happens, no city or state government can handle the disaster. As Briggs said when he started this thread, the US military is the only entity that can provide the necessary services.

You don't see hundreds of thousands of people being evacuated and relocated in Ala. and Miss. Why? Because the affected areas aren't as densely populated.

Fact: Bush and FEMA knew of the impending disaster days before it happened and did nothing.
oohah
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/7/2005
Member: #887
9/7/2005  5:49 PM
ok which is it? first you ask me is Iraq the only country that harbor these terrorist? Then you come back telling me that they don't?

sophistry

Plausible but fallacious argumentation.
A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.

n : a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sophistry

It is easier to engage in sophistry than actually back up your point I guess? Here I will tighten my statement: I did not claim Iraq harbored terrorists, the Bush administration (And you.) did. The Bush Administration claimed a connection between Iraq, Al Quaeda, and other terrorists groups. They claimed Iraq had WMD's and there was a plan to use them in the immediate future. As of yet no connection has been proven. (Saddam has been known to send checks to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.) I am sure many terrorists have passed through Bagdad and maybe even chatted with Saddam.

However, there are many states that are much more active in the terrorist game and we have babied/protected them because of business reasons (Saudi Arabia.), or ignored them outright because of Bush and his/Daddy's obsession with oil.
I can go and get a list of islamic terrorist that went to hospitals in Iraq were harbored there, treated there and realeased, but I have the feeling that by doing that it won't change how you feel.

I have a feeling that you cannot get a list because you have yet to produce a fact while corresponding with me. Then it would be nice if you could show me something that showed that Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern countries did not provide the same levels of hospitality.
As far as O'reilly goes there is probably no way to get that transcript off the net now, but you are free to order it, they will send you a copy, but if you think that Bill O'reilly is a liar because he was sued by some lady for sexual harrassment( like how many rich guys aren't sued for this) and he criticized MJ for being guilty of child molestation then I can't help you there.. mabey hypocritical?

No, the point was he stated that Jackson MUST BE GUILTY or he WOULDN"T HAVE PAID OFF THE CASES. Yes hypocritical.
but a liar? and again the lady took a pay off so I don't give much weight to those who sue like that and except payoffs.... Do you really think their situations were the same.

He vowed to fight it. If she did not have the evidence then he wouldn't have folded. Do you really beleive the Great and Virtuous Role Model of O'Reilly would succumb to a bluff?

Read this page and you will find that O'Reilly is a schlock journalist made good, a veritable yellow journalist, and a muckraker. http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/entertainers/pundits/bill-oreilly/

Sometimes Muckraking is good, like when he exposed the 911 funds misuse. I never said he was all bad, just a liar and a hypocrite.
And what I meant by the comment " this is the very thing O'reilly talks about" is when people take his comments out of context to try and discredit him.. But if you can get me the quote where he said that about MJ I will glady say you are correct and leave it at that...

I can't find the exact quote. Here is an article by O'Rielly himself: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/billoreilly/bo20030215.shtml
Again find me a journalist that attacks the issues, find me a journalist that has held the judges accountable who fail to protect the children by not putting away child molesters. find me a journalist who will give both sides of the story, that is what I am asking, until then all you have are accusations vs Bill O'reilley, really do you have any facts about the lawsuit and that lady? I don't think anyone has the truth on that, until then it just seems people will use anything to discredit a guy who has held a lot of peoples feet to the fire...

First of all O'reilly does not give both sides of the story, I don't know where you got that from. The fact is he gave up, he was beat. If you don't believe that he harrased the woman you are simply denying the truth and you know it.

The journalist you are looking for is YOU. Don't believe what ANY of the talking heads tell you until you check it yourself. The internet empowers you to find the truth, not the magical presentation that is a television news production. Check the facts and hear what all sides have to say for yourself. It seems to me you think that O'Reilly speaks 'The Truth'. No, what he speaks is his opinion. (Which I guess you tend to agree with.) His "No Spin Zone" is tiny because of his ultra-narrow point of view.

Trust me, my Daddy wuz a newspaper man right here in NYC, and I work in the media industry myself. If you start believing that ANYONE is the truth, you are in for a letdown.

oohah



Good luck Mike D'Antoni, 'cause you ain't never seen nothing like this before!
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
9/7/2005  7:28 PM
It's a simple equation for me.

Number 1 George Bush has the abilities to move the military anywhere he wants, when he wants in a state of emeregncy, which he can declare. He had the ability to get on National TV and say-llokk this is dead serious, we are moving in the national Guard and military right now to assist people to get out of the region. We have set up points in Florida, Texas et al for a temporary move. The levees could have been worked on 3-4-5 or more days before the storm hit land. yes there is breakdown at every level--but George Bush controls the money, controls the military, controls the media--if NO mayor said get out, or Geore Bush said get continuosly on National TV--this wouldnt have been 1/10 as bad--this was going to be bad, but imho, George Bush cost thousands of lives and the USA billions upon billions of more $

He only cares about his over-extended, obnoxious, self-serving expensive war in iraq that was built on lies and both incidents have been utter embarrassments to the history of the USA.

There is no passing the buck here--its all George--hes the boss and he failed.
RIP Crushalot😞
Knight
Posts: 22775
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 7/21/2005
Member: #968
9/7/2005  7:39 PM
Anyone want to talk about the UN and the oil-for-food program? Anyone want to talk about the corruption of other countries in Iraq and why we didn't get the support we should have gotten in the first place? France and Russia act like they were taking the high-ground, opposing war, when they were illegally in business with such an evil regime...or I guess since it has been proven that Iraq was never a threat to anyone it doesn't matter.
"He only went to Georgia Tech for one year, and that's an engineering school." -LB
tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
9/7/2005  8:08 PM
Posted by oohah:
ok which is it? first you ask me is Iraq the only country that harbor these terrorist? Then you come back telling me that they don't?

sophistry

Plausible but fallacious argumentation.
A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.

n : a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sophistry

It is easier to engage in sophistry than actually back up your point I guess? Here I will tighten my statement: I did not claim Iraq harbored terrorists, the Bush administration (And you.) did. The Bush Administration claimed a connection between Iraq, Al Quaeda, and other terrorists groups. They claimed Iraq had WMD's and there was a plan to use them in the immediate future. As of yet no connection has been proven. (Saddam has been known to send checks to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.) I am sure many terrorists have passed through Bagdad and maybe even chatted with Saddam.

However, there are many states that are much more active in the terrorist game and we have babied/protected them because of business reasons (Saudi Arabia.), or ignored them outright because of Bush and his/Daddy's obsession with oil.
I can go and get a list of islamic terrorist that went to hospitals in Iraq were harbored there, treated there and realeased, but I have the feeling that by doing that it won't change how you feel.

I have a feeling that you cannot get a list because you have yet to produce a fact while corresponding with me. Then it would be nice if you could show me something that showed that Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern countries did not provide the same levels of hospitality.
As far as O'reilly goes there is probably no way to get that transcript off the net now, but you are free to order it, they will send you a copy, but if you think that Bill O'reilly is a liar because he was sued by some lady for sexual harrassment( like how many rich guys aren't sued for this) and he criticized MJ for being guilty of child molestation then I can't help you there.. mabey hypocritical?

No, the point was he stated that Jackson MUST BE GUILTY or he WOULDN"T HAVE PAID OFF THE CASES. Yes hypocritical.
but a liar? and again the lady took a pay off so I don't give much weight to those who sue like that and except payoffs.... Do you really think their situations were the same.

He vowed to fight it. If she did not have the evidence then he wouldn't have folded. Do you really beleive the Great and Virtuous Role Model of O'Reilly would succumb to a bluff?

Read this page and you will find that O'Reilly is a schlock journalist made good, a veritable yellow journalist, and a muckraker. http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/entertainers/pundits/bill-oreilly/

Sometimes Muckraking is good, like when he exposed the 911 funds misuse. I never said he was all bad, just a liar and a hypocrite.
And what I meant by the comment " this is the very thing O'reilly talks about" is when people take his comments out of context to try and discredit him.. But if you can get me the quote where he said that about MJ I will glady say you are correct and leave it at that...

I can't find the exact quote. Here is an article by O'Rielly himself: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/billoreilly/bo20030215.shtml
Again find me a journalist that attacks the issues, find me a journalist that has held the judges accountable who fail to protect the children by not putting away child molesters. find me a journalist who will give both sides of the story, that is what I am asking, until then all you have are accusations vs Bill O'reilley, really do you have any facts about the lawsuit and that lady? I don't think anyone has the truth on that, until then it just seems people will use anything to discredit a guy who has held a lot of peoples feet to the fire...

First of all O'reilly does not give both sides of the story, I don't know where you got that from. The fact is he gave up, he was beat. If you don't believe that he harrased the woman you are simply denying the truth and you know it.

The journalist you are looking for is YOU. Don't believe what ANY of the talking heads tell you until you check it yourself. The internet empowers you to find the truth, not the magical presentation that is a television news production. Check the facts and hear what all sides have to say for yourself. It seems to me you think that O'Reilly speaks 'The Truth'. No, what he speaks is his opinion. (Which I guess you tend to agree with.) His "No Spin Zone" is tiny because of his ultra-narrow point of view.

Trust me, my Daddy wuz a newspaper man right here in NYC, and I work in the media industry myself. If you start believing that ANYONE is the truth, you are in for a letdown.

oohah


whatever man, you shifted this argument to the war and Oreilley sexual harrasment. If the sexual harrasment is your only defense then this is going nowhere. Then you called the guy a liar and your proof was that he supposedly cheated on his wife? even if that was the case, i never knew breaking a promise was considered lying... I am not going to waste time with the rest and I sure as hell don't have to support you with proof when you will not reciprocate by doing the same IE; michael jackson comment. You see it works both ways.. either way, It doesn't matter to me weither you like O'reilly or not, the guy went into explination on why he didn't continue to fight the case but of course you only see one way, no need continuing with this argument. I stated why I think the guy is credible, the fact that he exposes corrupt judges, politicians, lawyers, local govt's ect. The fact that he consistently looks out for the welfare of young kids and the rights of people, this is a fact, but you won't address those, instead to pick out a sexual harrasment case in which the lady took money to go away, then you call him a liar and went reaching to his wedding vows as evidence, that is reaching like a mutha..LOl... I guess when in Doubt, attack them personally!!!
Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
9/7/2005  8:11 PM
Posted by nyvector16:

The FACT is the woman had him on tape harassing her.
She was about to go public with the tape when O'Reilly settled... and had her sign a non-disclosure agreement of course.
Those are the FACTS... they are what happened... and you can't spin that any other way.
They guy is a pervert. Good for him... it's a free country.
But when you use him as an all credible source... your leaving your arguement wide open with a huge hole called the O'Reilly Factor.



well that is intersting, let me look back at the marv albert support thread and read all the comments supporting him. I wonder if you were on there issuing support to marv. I mean is he still a credible source after his incident in the hotel room with that woman? heck he was even cought with a girdle and womens panties on... I guess he doesn't know a thing about broadcasting because of that...

Fact?

hmmmm

Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
Rich
Posts: 27410
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 12/30/2003
Member: #511
USA
9/7/2005  8:40 PM
Posted by Knight:

Anyone want to talk about the UN and the oil-for-food program? Anyone want to talk about the corruption of other countries in Iraq and why we didn't get the support we should have gotten in the first place? France and Russia act like they were taking the high-ground, opposing war, when they were illegally in business with such an evil regime...or I guess since it has been proven that Iraq was never a threat to anyone it doesn't matter.

Start a thread if you want.

Kofi Annan is boob. Those implicated in the oil for food program should be punished.

OK?
oohah
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/7/2005
Member: #887
9/7/2005  9:17 PM
whatever man, you shifted this argument to the war and Oreilley sexual harrasment. If the sexual harrasment is your only defense then this is going nowhere. Then you called the guy a liar and your proof was that he supposedly cheated on his wife? even if that was the case, i never knew breaking a promise was considered lying... I am not going to waste time with the rest and I sure as hell don't have to support you with proof when you will not reciprocate by doing the same IE; michael jackson comment. You see it works both ways.. either way, It doesn't matter to me weither you like O'reilly or not, the guy went into explination on why he didn't continue to fight the case but of course you only see one way, no need continuing with this argument. I stated why I think the guy is credible, the fact that he exposes corrupt judges, politicians, lawyers, local govt's ect. The fact that he consistently looks out for the welfare of young kids and the rights of people, this is a fact, but you won't address those, instead to pick out a sexual harrasment case in which the lady took money to go away, then you call him a liar and went reaching to his wedding vows as evidence, that is reaching like a mutha..LOl... I guess when in Doubt, attack them personally!!!

I didn't think you could produce evidence....and I was right.
well that is intersting, let me look back at the marv albert support thread and read all the comments supporting him. I wonder if you were on there issuing support to marv. I mean is he still a credible source after his incident in the hotel room with that woman? heck he was even cought with a girdle and womens panties on... I guess he doesn't know a thing about broadcasting because of that...

Fact?

hmmmm

Now you are bringing in Marv Albert, a Sports Broadcaster? Comparing him to O'reilly and what he does? That is rich... thanks for putting a smile on my face

Good night!

oohah



Good luck Mike D'Antoni, 'cause you ain't never seen nothing like this before!
HARDCOREKNICKSFAN
Posts: 26191
Alba Posts: 28
Joined: 6/24/2002
Member: #263
USA
9/7/2005  10:11 PM
Posted by oohah:
whatever man, you shifted this argument to the war and Oreilley sexual harrasment. If the sexual harrasment is your only defense then this is going nowhere. Then you called the guy a liar and your proof was that he supposedly cheated on his wife? even if that was the case, i never knew breaking a promise was considered lying... I am not going to waste time with the rest and I sure as hell don't have to support you with proof when you will not reciprocate by doing the same IE; michael jackson comment. You see it works both ways.. either way, It doesn't matter to me weither you like O'reilly or not, the guy went into explination on why he didn't continue to fight the case but of course you only see one way, no need continuing with this argument. I stated why I think the guy is credible, the fact that he exposes corrupt judges, politicians, lawyers, local govt's ect. The fact that he consistently looks out for the welfare of young kids and the rights of people, this is a fact, but you won't address those, instead to pick out a sexual harrasment case in which the lady took money to go away, then you call him a liar and went reaching to his wedding vows as evidence, that is reaching like a mutha..LOl... I guess when in Doubt, attack them personally!!!

I didn't think you could produce evidence....and I was right.
well that is intersting, let me look back at the marv albert support thread and read all the comments supporting him. I wonder if you were on there issuing support to marv. I mean is he still a credible source after his incident in the hotel room with that woman? heck he was even cought with a girdle and womens panties on... I guess he doesn't know a thing about broadcasting because of that...

Fact?

hmmmm

Now you are bringing in Marv Albert, a Sports Broadcaster? Comparing him to O'reilly and what he does? That is rich... thanks for putting a smile on my face

Good night!

oohah

Opinions supported by facts and references always make for a strong argument.

Masterful retort, oohah.


Another season, and more adversity to persevere through. We will get the job done, even BETTER than last year. GO KNICKS!
Silverfuel
Posts: 31750
Alba Posts: 3
Joined: 6/27/2002
Member: #268
USA
9/7/2005  10:17 PM
Posted by Knight:

France and Russia act like they were taking the high-ground, opposing war, when they were illegally in business with such an evil regime...
Do you know we are allied with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? Do you know how corrupt those governments are? Do you know how much loss of life there is every week in Israel because of Saudi sponsored terror?
Posted by Knight:

I guess since it has been proven that Iraq was never a threat to anyone it doesn't matter.
Do you know what a threat is? Do you know what priorities are? Do you know what countries the 9/11 hi-jackers were actually from? Do you know which countries actually HAVE weapons of mass destruction?
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
9/7/2005  10:22 PM
Posted by oohah:
whatever man, you shifted this argument to the war and Oreilley sexual harrasment. If the sexual harrasment is your only defense then this is going nowhere. Then you called the guy a liar and your proof was that he supposedly cheated on his wife? even if that was the case, i never knew breaking a promise was considered lying... I am not going to waste time with the rest and I sure as hell don't have to support you with proof when you will not reciprocate by doing the same IE; michael jackson comment. You see it works both ways.. either way, It doesn't matter to me weither you like O'reilly or not, the guy went into explination on why he didn't continue to fight the case but of course you only see one way, no need continuing with this argument. I stated why I think the guy is credible, the fact that he exposes corrupt judges, politicians, lawyers, local govt's ect. The fact that he consistently looks out for the welfare of young kids and the rights of people, this is a fact, but you won't address those, instead to pick out a sexual harrasment case in which the lady took money to go away, then you call him a liar and went reaching to his wedding vows as evidence, that is reaching like a mutha..LOl... I guess when in Doubt, attack them personally!!!

I didn't think you could produce evidence....and I was right.
well that is intersting, let me look back at the marv albert support thread and read all the comments supporting him. I wonder if you were on there issuing support to marv. I mean is he still a credible source after his incident in the hotel room with that woman? heck he was even cought with a girdle and womens panties on... I guess he doesn't know a thing about broadcasting because of that...

Fact?

hmmmm

Now you are bringing in Marv Albert, a Sports Broadcaster? Comparing him to O'reilly and what he does? That is rich... thanks for putting a smile on my face

Good night!

oohah




again why do I need to produce evidence, you are the one going on the character assination of O'reilley. And as I thought you have no evidence to bring forth...

see how easy that is?


Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
9/7/2005  10:28 PM
Posted by HARDCOREKNICKSFAN:
Posted by oohah:
whatever man, you shifted this argument to the war and Oreilley sexual harrasment. If the sexual harrasment is your only defense then this is going nowhere. Then you called the guy a liar and your proof was that he supposedly cheated on his wife? even if that was the case, i never knew breaking a promise was considered lying... I am not going to waste time with the rest and I sure as hell don't have to support you with proof when you will not reciprocate by doing the same IE; michael jackson comment. You see it works both ways.. either way, It doesn't matter to me weither you like O'reilly or not, the guy went into explination on why he didn't continue to fight the case but of course you only see one way, no need continuing with this argument. I stated why I think the guy is credible, the fact that he exposes corrupt judges, politicians, lawyers, local govt's ect. The fact that he consistently looks out for the welfare of young kids and the rights of people, this is a fact, but you won't address those, instead to pick out a sexual harrasment case in which the lady took money to go away, then you call him a liar and went reaching to his wedding vows as evidence, that is reaching like a mutha..LOl... I guess when in Doubt, attack them personally!!!

I didn't think you could produce evidence....and I was right.
well that is intersting, let me look back at the marv albert support thread and read all the comments supporting him. I wonder if you were on there issuing support to marv. I mean is he still a credible source after his incident in the hotel room with that woman? heck he was even cought with a girdle and womens panties on... I guess he doesn't know a thing about broadcasting because of that...

Fact?

hmmmm

Now you are bringing in Marv Albert, a Sports Broadcaster? Comparing him to O'reilly and what he does? That is rich... thanks for putting a smile on my face

Good night!

oohah

Opinions supported by facts and references always make for a strong argument.

Masterful retort, oohah.

he does not have any facts, all he has are sexual harrasment charges and marriage vows.. All I said is that O'Reilley has held people accountable and he does so by presenting the facts, I mentioned the judges in california who were going soft on child molesters that O'reilley brought attention to until they started putting these molesters in jail with stiff sentences, and what does he do? he dances around that one, when I see people attack issues with, his harrassment lawsuit, I know the argument is pretty much over at that point, but I am done with this, this thread is really not about Bill O'reilly, that is a topic for another day, another time...


Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
Rich
Posts: 27410
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 12/30/2003
Member: #511
USA
9/7/2005  10:35 PM
The New York Daily News reported that O'Reilly agreed to pay Mackris anywhere from $2 million to $10 million. It's unfathomable that he would pay that kind of money if the woman didn't have facts on her side.
tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
9/8/2005  12:20 AM
Posted by Rich:

The New York Daily News reported that O'Reilly agreed to pay Mackris anywhere from $2 million to $10 million. It's unfathomable that he would pay that kind of money if the woman didn't have facts on her side.


I still don't see how that makes him not credible. I still liked clinton as prez even with the lewinski ordeal, we all make mistakes, and somewhere if this is true Bill will pay for it, even if it is in private, but that doesn't take away from his profession, the guy still is credible, he still exposes corruption and remains a voice, a strong voice in the jouranlism profession...

Anyway, I knew bill was paid, but I didn't know he had that kind of loot!!!
Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
oohah
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/7/2005
Member: #887
9/8/2005  1:31 PM
TKF, I am sorry, I really did not mean to tear at one of your heroes! Cool?

***

Back to what we were talking about:

I looked at the past 3 pages where we have been arguing, and you have not presented anything that anyone else can check on to support your arguement. I, on the other hand have provided links for you to check in almost every reply. (So have other people in their post on other subjects.)

You also said you could do it:
I can go and get a list of islamic terrorist that went to hospitals in Iraq were harbored there, treated there and realeased, but I have the feeling that by doing that it won't change how you feel.

And when I called your bluff you came back with:
I am not going to waste time with the rest and I sure as hell don't have to support you with proof when you will not reciprocate by doing the same IE; michael jackson comment.

As I suspected. Have you read any of the articles I linked to? Or are you worried you might find something out about O'Reilly that you didn't want to?
I guess when in Doubt, attack them personally!!!

This is a Bill O'Reilly tactic, why do you have such a problem with it? (He did to President Clinton.)

FACT: Bill O'Reilly behaves as if he is a "standard bearer" for morality.
FACT: Bill O'Reilly is not a standard bearer for morality, as proven in his sexual harrassment case.
FACT: Bill O'Really has at times used his show as a forum to expose inequality and injustice.
FACT: Frequently Bill O'reilly has had President Bush and other Higher ups in the current administration on his program, and rather than asking the tough questions, he has handed out blowjobs. (Metaphorically.)
he dances around that one, when I see people attack issues with, his harrassment lawsuit, I know the argument is pretty much over at that point, but I am done with this, this thread is really not about Bill O'reilly, that is a topic for another day, another time...

I have danced around nothing. I even ceded the point of his exposing certain things in the above "FACTS:" You have not backed up your argument with anything but vague anecdotes, which in turn you refuse to back up in even the smallest way.

My point is that Bill O'Reilly is hardly what he claims to be: Fair or Impartial, and certainly he spins with the best of them. It is easy to agree with putting away child molesters etc. That doesn't make him special, but it is a good thing. However, he focuses quite a bit on politics and morality, and he has been exposed as immoral by his own standards, and as a right-wing mouth piece on the political front.

The reason I have been able to point this out is that O'Reilly isn't new to me. I remember him during Clinton, and even before that on Inside Edition, and even before that!
Then you called the guy a liar and your proof was that he supposedly cheated on his wife? even if that was the case, i never knew breaking a promise was considered lying...

You didn't? Wow!
he does not have any facts, all he has are sexual harrasment charges and marriage vows..

Your man O'Relly thought wedding vows were pretty important when it came to Clinton. Plus, I guess you did not read the next 2 sentences after that:
When he swore to be faithful to his wife. When he told Mackris that he would not speak to her like a whore. When he has gone on TV and railed on about family values and morality: http://www.fair.org/press-releases/oreilly-harassment.html

How about that? Why are you "dancing around" those other 2 facts?
again why do I need to produce evidence, you are the one going on the character assination of O'reilley. And as I thought you have no evidence to bring forth...

see how easy that is?

Sophistry.
I still don't see how that makes him not credible.

Because O'Reilly has made it his business to attack the credibility of others based on the same criteria. It doesn't make him in-credible on all topics, but he should stay away from family values from here on out for sure.
I still liked clinton as prez even with the lewinski ordeal,

Clinton did not criticize others for the same mistakes he made. Also Apples and Oranges, like you Mark alber comparison. Here is another one:

Bradd pitt cheated on his wife too, so does that make him not credible, Huh!?!?
we all make mistakes, and somewhere if this is true Bill will pay for it, even if it is in private, but that doesn't take away from his profession, the guy still is credible, he still exposes corruption and remains a voice, a strong voice in the jouranlism profession...

Definitely a loud voice.

oohah
Good luck Mike D'Antoni, 'cause you ain't never seen nothing like this before!
Mac
Posts: 20767
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/8/2003
Member: #470
Japan
9/8/2005  3:26 PM
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2005/09/the_highest_deg.html
interesting read
nyvector16
Posts: 21341
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/9/2001
Member: #130
USA
9/8/2005  3:58 PM
Great piece of reading Mac...
tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
9/8/2005  4:16 PM
Posted by oohah:

TKF, I am sorry, I really did not mean to tear at one of your heroes! Cool?

***

B

this will be my final post on this issue

And when I called your bluff you came back with:

bluff? all I said is why should I provide proof when you haven't, especially with the michael jackson quote.. come on man. we all can provide links to articles supporting and trashing O'reilly, but next we will have to spend 10 pages arguing the credibilit of the writers of those articles, I am not interested in that...

As far as marriage vows go, I guess every divorcee who vowed to stay together until death them do part, are all liars I guess? Ok if that is how you feel, I guess O'reilly is a liar(rolling eyes) whatever..

Next you trivailize his work against child molesters and crooked and irresponsible judges, heck at least he is doing that instead of looking for some story that is purely sensationalism. I applaud his work in that area..

As far as his ability to speak on morals. remember the man was ACCUSED!! not convicted, other than that he has a clean record in the morality dept, unless you have proof otherwise. He was accused and the accuser too money to go away. Who is really the bad guy here?


My point is that Bill O'Reilly is hardly what he claims to be: Fair or Impartial, and certainly he spins with the best of them. It is easy to agree with putting away child molesters etc. That doesn't make him special, but it is a good thing. However, he focuses quite a bit on politics and morality, and he has been exposed as immoral by his own standards, and as a right-wing mouth piece on the political front

call him what you want, he claims to be for the people, I think he is, he claims to be fair, I think he is, he also claims to look out for children and the common man, and he has done that, I have given you examples of that, but you trivialize them. Again he attacks issues that no one seems to want to touch, he holds people responsible, he expects people to be accountable and I like that. right wing or not he does have high standards and if your only rebuttle to that is a accusation which went away with some money, then I say that is weak, and doesn't hold water any longer....

[Edited by - tkf on 09-08-2005 4:35 PM]
Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
nyvector16
Posts: 21341
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/9/2001
Member: #130
USA
9/8/2005  4:27 PM
TKF.... you've done a masterful job of cahnging the conversation away from Bush's failures to O'Reilly...
If I didn't know any better I would have thought you were actually in this administration.
Anyway... The point of this thread does not have anything to do with O'Reilly...

It has to do with the following:
- Incompetence at the highest levels of FEMA because of inappropriate appointments by Bush to get his friends jobs..
- Bush ordered the Army Corp of Engineer to halt research into strengethening the Levees that broke one year before they actually did.
- and a host of other points listed previously in this rather extensive thread.
Page 17 of 23 « First‹ Previous 15  16  17  18  19 Next ›Last »
« Reply To Topic
OT--USA military shouldve helped get the people out of nO BEFORE the fact
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy