We Decide, you Shut Up

[Cain]

In Harper's Magazine I read a partial transcript of O'Reilly's interview with Jermey Glick, whose father died in one of the towers on 9/11. After the interview, Glick says O'Reilly told to "get the f*ck out of here before I tear you to pieces."

This comes from http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/oreillyglick.htm

He's more hysterical than usual...

O'REILLY: In the "Personal Stories" segment tonight, we were surprised to find out than an American who lost his father in the World Trade Center attack had signed an anti-war advertisement that accused the USA itself of terrorism. The offending passage read, "We too watched with shock the horrific events of September 11... we too mourned the thousands of innocent dead and shook our heads at the terrible scenes of carnage -- even as we recalled similar scenes in Baghdad, Panama City, and a generation ago, Vietnam." With us now is Jeremy Glick, whose father, Barry, was a Port Authority worker at the Trade Center. Mr. Glick is a co-author of the book "Another World is Possible." I'm surprised you signed this. You were the only one of all of the families who signed...

JEREMY GLICK: Well, actually, that's not true.

O'REILLY: Who signed the advertisement?

GLICK: Peaceful Tomorrow, which represents 9/11 families, were also involved.

O'REILLY: Hold it, hold it, hold it, Jeremy. You're the only one who signed this advertisement.

GLICK: As an individual.

O'REILLY: Yes, as -- with your name. You were the only one. I was surprised, and the reason I was surprised is that this ad equates the United States with the terrorists. And I was offended by that.

GLICK: Well, you say -- I remember earlier you said it was a moral equivalency, and it's actually a material equivalency. And just to back up for a second about your surprise, I'm actually shocked that you're surprised. If you think about it, our current president, who I feel and many feel is in this position illegitimately by neglecting the voices of Afro- Americans in the Florida coup, which, actually, somebody got impeached for during the Reconstruction period -- Our current president now inherited a legacy from his father and inherited a political legacy that's responsible for training militarily, economically, and situating geopolitically the parties involved in the alleged assassination and the murder of my father and countless of thousands of others. So I don't see why it's surprising...

O'REILLY: All right. Now let me stop you here. So...

GLICK: ... for you to think that I would come back and want to support...

O'REILLY: It is surprising, and I'll tell you why. I'll tell you why it's surprising.

GLICK: ... escalating...

O'REILLY: You are mouthing a far left position that is a marginal position in this society, which you're entitled to.

GLICK: It's marginal -- right.

O'REILLY: You're entitled to it, all right, but you're -- you see, even -- I'm sure your beliefs are sincere, but what upsets me is I don't think your father would be approving of this.

GLICK: Well, actually, my father thought that Bush's presidency was illegitimate.

O'REILLY: Maybe he did, but...

GLICK: I also didn't think that Bush...

O'REILLY: ... I don't think he'd be equating this country as a terrorist nation as you are.

GLICK: Well, I wasn't saying that it was necessarily like that.

O'REILLY: Yes, you are. You signed...

GLICK: What I'm saying is...

O'REILLY: ... this, and that absolutely said that.

GLICK: ... is that in -- six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government.

O'REILLY: All right. I don't want to...

GLICK: Maybe...

O'REILLY: I don't want to debate world politics with you.

GLICK: Well, why not? This is about world politics.

O'REILLY: Because, No. 1, I don't really care what you think.

GLICK: Well, OK.

O'REILLY: You're -- I want to...

GLICK: But you do care because you...

O'REILLY: No, no. Look...

GLICK: The reason why you care is because you evoke 9/11...

O'REILLY: Here's why I care.

GLICK: ... to rationalize...

O'REILLY: Here's why I care...

GLICK: Let me finish. You evoke 9/11 to rationalize everything from domestic plunder to imperialistic aggression worldwide.

O'REILLY: OK. That's a bunch...

GLICK: You evoke sympathy with the 9/11 families.

O'REILLY: That's a bunch of crap. I've done more for the 9/11 families by their own admission -- I've done more for them than you will ever hope to do.

GLICK: OK.

O'REILLY: So you keep your mouth shut when you sit here exploiting those people.

GLICK: Well, you're not representing me. You're not representing me.

O'REILLY: And I'd never represent you. You know why?

GLICK: Why?

O'REILLY: Because you have a warped view of this world and a warped view of this country.

GLICK: Well, explain that. Let me give you an example of a parallel...

O'REILLY: No, I'm not going to debate this with you, all right.

GLICK: Well, let me give you an example of parallel experience. On September 14...

O'REILLY: No, no. Here's -- here's the...

GLICK: On September 14...

O'REILLY: Here's the record.

GLICK: OK.

O'REILLY: All right. You didn't support the action against Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. You were against it, OK.

GLICK: Why would I want to brutalize and further punish the people in Afghanistan...

O'REILLY: Who killed your father!

GLICK: The people in Afghanistan...

O'REILLY: Who killed your father.

GLICK: ... didn't kill my father.

O'REILLY: Sure they did. The al Qaeda people were trained there.

GLICK: The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people?

O'REILLY: See, I'm more angry about it than you are!

GLICK: So what about George Bush?

O'REILLY: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: The director -- senior as director of the CIA.

O'REILLY: He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who were...

O'REILLY: Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this.

GLICK: Well, I hope she is.

O'REILLY: I hope your mother is not watching this because you -- that's it. I'm not going to say anymore.

GLICK: OK.

O'REILLY: In respect for your father...

GLICK: On September 14, do you want to know what I'm doing?

O'REILLY: Shut up. Shut up.

GLICK: Oh, please don't tell me to shut up.

O'REILLY: As respect -- as respect -- in respect for your father, who was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed unnecessarily by barbarians...

GLICK: By radical extremists who were trained by this government...

O'REILLY: Out of respect for him...

GLICK: ... not the people of America.

O'REILLY: ... I'm not going to...

GLICK: ... The people of the ruling class, the small minority.

O'REILLY: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of respect for your father. We will be back in a moment with more of THE FACTOR.

GLICK: That means we're done?

O'REILLY: We're done.

[Tony]

Glick is obviously a bedwetting pussy, to bad he wasnt killed.

[Cain]

I tend to agree. :rolleyes:

Ann Coulter said it best: "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cain
I tend to agree. :rolleyes:

Ann Coulter said it best: "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."

Did she really say that?

As for O'Reilly, he just demonstrates how thin the veneer of credibility is for his cause.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cain


Ann Coulter said it best: "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."

I tend to stay away from extremist demagogues like Coulter and "oriellysucks.com", but if you feel the need to give legitimacy to such propaganda. By all means. :)

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person




As for O'Reilly, he just demonstrates how thin the veneer of credibility is for his cause.

What "cause" is that?

[crackmonkey]

Perhaps a good, hard slap across the face would snap Glick out of his hysteria.

[Cain]

Yes, she did say that (Ann Coulter 2/6/02, speech at Conservative Political Action Conference)

I tend to stay away from extremist demagogues like Coulter and "oriellysucks.com", but if you feel the need to give legitimacy to such propaganda.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. If your original comments were made in earnest (I thought it may have been sarcasm), then there's no point replying. Oreillysucks.com/ is only cited as a source, and I quoted no editorial content from that site.

The quote taken from Coulter -- if anything -- delegitimizes her.

[DrBenway]

Not having much access to TV, I don't know O'Reilly very well. But this interview is moronic.

Anyone who claims sympathy and solidarity with 9/11 survivors is in no position to abuse a family member of someone who died there. O'Reilly ought to have respectfully allowed the guy to present his views without interruption and badgering. At the end, he might have said, "I thank you for taking the time to share your feelings with us. I'm afraid I see things a little differently myself."

This display is embarassing. O'Reilly comes off as an ego maniac who has to humiliate his opponents.

[a_unique_person]

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/feb2002/coul-f27.shtml



Coulter was unapologetic afterwards, claiming that her statement was a “huge hit with the audience.” About 3,500 people attended the four-day CPAC conference, the annual gathering of far-right elements in the Republican Party, which was held January 30-February 2 in Arlington, Virginia. Representatives and supporters of some 70 organizations and publications participated. (It was at the 1994 CPAC conference that the Paula Jones sexual harassment case was publicly launched against the Clinton White House, at a press conference organized by a group of right-wing activists.)

Coulter’s comments, and the audience reaction, are an expression of one of the most important realities in American political life—the emergence within the political establishment of a significant fascist layer, cultivated and promoted by sections of corporate America and the media, which now plays a dominant role in the Republican Party and wields enormous influence within the Bush administration.

[Tony]

Originally posted by DrBenway
O'Reilly ought to have respectfully allowed the guy to present his views without interruption and badgering.


Re-read the interview, it was glick who kept cutting off O'reilly.

[corplinx]

"the florida coup", priceless

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony



Re-read the interview, it was glick who kept cutting off O'reilly.



O'REILLY: All right. Now let me stop you here. So...

[Cain]

Re-read the interview, it was glick who kept cutting off O'reilly.

What are you talking about?? The transcript is right there; O'Reilly initiates most of the interruptions. Watch any of O'Reilly's so-called interviews.

Here's my favorite part:

O'REILLY: All right. You didn't support the action against Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. You were against it, OK.

GLICK: Why would I want to brutalize and further punish the people in Afghanistan...

[O'Reilly interrupts with a non sequitur]

O'REILLY: Who killed your father!

[Glick "interrupts" to complete his sentece]

GLICK: The people in Afghanistan...

[O'Reilly interrupts again]

O'REILLY: Who killed your father.

GLICK: ... didn't kill my father.

O'REILLY: Sure they did. The al Qaeda people were trained there.

GLICK: The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people?

[O'Reilly's fatuous and irrelevant remark:]

O'REILLY: See, I'm more angry about it than you are!

GLICK: So what about George Bush?

O'REILLY: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: The director -- senior as director of the CIA.

[The CIA did indeed support the Mujahadeed against the Soviets]

O'REILLY: He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who were...

[O'Reilly interrupts with another non-sequitur]

O'REILLY: Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this.

[corplinx]

"GLICK: Let me finish. You evoke 9/11 to rationalize everything from domestic plunder to imperialistic aggression worldwide. "

O'Reilly learned the hard way, don't put a woo-woo on primetime. What's next? A family member of a 9-11 victim who is a black helicoptor john birch woo-woo?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cain


What are you talking about?? The transcript is right there; O'Reilly initiates most of the interruptions. Watch any of O'Reilly's so-called interviews.

Here's my favorite part:

O'REILLY: All right. You didn't support the action against Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. You were against it, OK.

GLICK: Why would I want to brutalize and further punish the people in Afghanistan...

[O'Reilly interrupts with a non sequitur]

O'REILLY: Who killed your father!

[Glick "interrupts" to complete his sentece]

GLICK: The people in Afghanistan...

[O'Reilly interrupts again]

O'REILLY: Who killed your father.

GLICK: ... didn't kill my father.

O'REILLY: Sure they did. The al Qaeda people were trained there.

GLICK: The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people?

[O'Reilly's fatuous and irrelevant remark:]

O'REILLY: See, I'm more angry about it than you are!

GLICK: So what about George Bush?

O'REILLY: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: The director -- senior as director of the CIA.

[The CIA did indeed support the Mujahadeed against the Soviets]

O'REILLY: He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who were...

[O'Reilly interrupts with another non-sequitur]

O'REILLY: Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this.


Again, re-read the interview. Glick has more dialogue, and he interrupted Orielly first.

[a_unique_person]

I thought it was supposed to be an interview. You ask a few questions to get them started. When they dry up, you as a few more.

[corplinx]

Why would anyone be surprised O'Reilly interrupted the guy, he guy was a total mark for left wing conspiracy propaganda. If this guy had been a John Bircher, people would be cheering the guy getting interrupted and O'Reilly not letting him change subjects or make statements without backing them up.

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I thought it was supposed to be an interview. You ask a few questions to get them started. When they dry up, you as a few more.

Actually, its more of a debate. If you knew anything about O'reilly's show, you would realize that. Do they have "The Orielly Factor" in australia?

[Tony]

Originally posted by corplinx
Why would anyone be surprised O'Reilly interrupted the guy, he guy was a total mark for left wing conspiracy propaganda. If this guy had been a John Bircher, people would be cheering the guy getting interrupted and O'Reilly not letting him change subjects or make statements without backing them up.


That reminds me of the time he had the christian fundy on his show debating him on gay adoption. Orielly tore the guy up.

[Cain]

Sigh. So much nonsense here...

Why would anyone be surprised O'Reilly interrupted the guy, he guy was a total mark for left wing conspiracy propaganda. If this guy had been a John Bircher, people would be cheering the guy getting interrupted and O'Reilly not letting him change subjects or make statements without backing them up.

What left-wing conspiracy propaganda? How can anyone on television be expected to reasonably support every claim that diverges from the mainstream? Talk shows are all about regurgitating pre-packaged sound-bites.

No one regards Bush's stolen election as a "conspiracy" -- it happened right out in the open.

Again, re-read the interview. Glick has more dialogue, and he interrupted Orielly first.

This does nothing to refute anything I've said, of course. If you noticed, he politely corrected O'Reilly. It wasn't an interruption to go off on a rant. I'm also no disputing that Glick has "more dialogue," he should because -- get this -- he's the subject of the interview.

You're fighting a losing battle here. O'Reilly screamed for him "Shut up, Shut up!" and ordered that his mic be cut.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cain



No one regards Bush's stolen election as a "conspiracy" -- it happened right out in the open.



Sigh. So much nonsense here. Bush also stole my pink unicorn.

You're fighting a losing battle here. O'Reilly screamed for him "Shut up, Shut up!" and ordered that his mic be cut.

Because he was going on a bedwetting rant, something O'reilly has never tolerated. The fact is, glick is a conspiracy nut not capable of rational debate.

[corplinx]

For the record:
Left wing woo-woo Right wing woo-woo
florida coup! nwo coup!
we trained osama! we trained oswald!
imperialism! one world government!

At least both sides can agree on:
Bush's dad was CIA director!

The right wing woo woo sees wealthy elites trying to wrestle the world towards one socialist totalitarian state.

The left wing woo woo sees wealthy elites trying to wrestle the world into a corporation controlled global feudal state.

I think the left wing woo-woos have a great thing going in that the right wing woo-woos are labeled as such consistently but the left wing woo-woos are not.

[Tony]

Originally posted by corplinx
For the record:
Left wing woo-woo Right wing woo-woo
florida coup! nwo coup!
we trained osama! we trained oswald!
imperialism! one world government!

At least both sides can agree on:
Bush's dad was CIA director!

The right wing woo woo sees wealthy elites trying to wrestle the world towards one socialist totalitarian state.

The left wing woo woo sees wealthy elites trying to wrestle the world into a corporation controlled global feudal state.

I think the left wing woo-woos have a great thing going in that the right wing woo-woos are labeled as such consistently but the left wing woo-woos are not.

Wanna see some real woo-woo dribble? Go here. (http://www.zmag.org/ZMagSite/curTOC.htm)

[Mr Manifesto]

O'Reilly might have tried to address the notion that america is not a terrorist state. He would not have been able to prove that. Instead he cut off Glick again and again appealing to the emotions of his audience.

If Fla was so above board why did Bush try so hard to avoid a hand count? Surely if he had nothing to hide a hand count would only exonerate him? And how many judges on the supereme court panel were republicans? Just a thought.

[Cain]

For the record:
Left wing woo-woo Right wing woo-woo
florida coup! nwo coup!
we trained osama! we trained oswald!

Are you kidding me? Of course we sent aid to Osama. That's not some crazed conspiracy theory, it's indisputable fact. Your Ronald Reagan compared the Mujahadeen to the Founding Fathers.

see this interview with Zbignew Brezezinski with a French paper (before the 9/11 atrocities).

http://www.nonviolence.org/comment/archives/104.php

Not only does he openly acknowledge what everyone today knows (except for maybe you), but he's proud that we armed the Taliban.


The left wing woo woo sees wealthy elites trying to wrestle the world into a corporation controlled global feudal state.

Yeah, a "global fedual state" -- that makes sense :rolleyes: . Broadly speaking, the mainstream left -- which has a tiny if non-existent presence in the mainstream media -- argues that states act on behalf of wealthy elites, especially when it comes to foreign policy. I don't see why that's so controversial. Expanding markets, opening up trade, the Washington consensus. There's nothing conspiratorial about it. The differences are normative. Op-ed writers in elite publications like the _New York Times_ think it's good. Indeed, everyone in the mainstream (Fox, Weekly Standard, Time, WaPo, Newsweek etc.) thinks globalization is good. Others don't.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Cain


Are you kidding me? Of course we sent aid to Osama. That's not some crazed conspiracy theory, it's indisputable fact.

Its also indisputable fact that we trained Lee Harvey to use a rifle. Its the woo-woo that uses these facts to draw a sinister web.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
If Fla was so above board why did Bush try so hard to avoid a hand count? Surely if he had nothing to hide a hand count would only exonerate him? And how many judges on the supereme court panel were republicans? Just a thought.

Yes, the same kinds of conundrums that point to a JFK coverup. "If this was this, then why is that?" The fact is, Bush has won every recount done on the original voting standards.

The only tangible claim the rigged election people make is that the company that was in charge of making sure felons could not vote had too many false positives in their lists. This means that _if_ those people showed up at the polls they would have been turned away. Unfortunately, this is one of those screwups we can't go back and change. The "woo-woo" will go on about voter cleansing, who worked for who, and suggest without direct accusation some form of collusion. At least the left wing woo-woos have enough sense to imply strongly rather than openly accuse. This I guess makes them more reasonable.

Florida wasnt a coup, it was a clusterf*ck. The woo-woo sees a coup.

[Smalso]

Ann Coulter said it best: "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."

Glick is obviously a bedwetting pussy, to bad he wasnt killed.

Perhaps a good, hard slap across the face would snap Glick out of his hysteria.


Pretty good ways to silence those with differing opinions. It's the American way,

edit: typo

[Cain]

Its also indisputable fact that we trained Lee Harvey to use a rifle. Its the woo-woo that uses these facts to draw a sinister web.

No one is saying that we aided the Taliban knowing they would attack us. The left criticizes aid to tyrants *because* they are tyrants and not for the reason that they might some day turn on us. Compare Saddam and Osama to Suharto and Pinochet. All received US support, but the latter are no better than the former (and in many ways worse). But the US adopts a egoistic subjectivism: you're goodness is measured in relationship to us.

Did you read the interview I linked with Carter's cherished National Security Adviser?


Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of The pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?
B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [intégrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

[Tony]

Help me out here cain, what is your beef with the content of that interview? I dont see anything objectionable. (excpet that the national security adviser plays down the danger of fundy islam)

[gnome]

Originally posted by corplinx

The only tangible claim the rigged election people make is that the company that was in charge of making sure felons could not vote had too many false positives in their lists. This means that _if_ those people showed up at the polls they would have been turned away. Unfortunately, this is one of those screwups we can't go back and change. The "woo-woo" will go on about voter cleansing, who worked for who, and suggest without direct accusation some form of collusion. At least the left wing woo-woos have enough sense to imply strongly rather than openly accuse. This I guess makes them more reasonable.

Florida wasnt a coup, it was a clusterf*ck. The woo-woo sees a coup.

(emphasis added)

It could be considered just a screw up, if the state had not been informed of the problem well in advance, and insisted on using the list anyway. Then it becomes deliberate.

[Gregor]

Enough with the whining Florida vote crap. Bush won in the first count. Bush won in the second count.

Then . . Did none of you notice that when all the votes were hand counted by the publishing consortium after the election was certified that Bush's lead widened?

You can dislike his policies, but for god's sake stop posting things that are factually inaccurate.

[shanek]

I've seen O'Reilly's show many times. This is how he always is towards people he disgarees with. He constantly interrupts them, never letting them finish a sentence or getting a point out. It's the last place to go if you want to hear a real debate on the issues.

[Sundog]

All of you with responses like "Too bad he wasn't killed", you are the worst thing wrong with America today, and you all just made it onto my ignore list.

You have no idea what America is about.

I've been indecisive about this forum partly because it seems to have a few borderline right-wing psychopaths that I can't co-exist with. I have been reluctant to use ignore until now but I feel it's the only way I can co-exist with such unAmerican people.

I will be thankful if those of you who do not see that O'Reilly is OBVIOUSLY the nutcase here, please put me on ignore as well, I don't want to talk to idiots any more.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Tony


Actually, its more of a debate. If you knew anything about O'reilly's show, you would realize that.

I'm surprised that you would say this as some sort of defence for O'Reilly, who invited a guy onto his show because he thought that as a family member of someone who died at the WTC he had some interesting world political views. O'Reilly then tells him, twice, that he refuses to debate world politics with him because he doesn't care what Glick thinks.

The most sickening part of this is that O'Reilly claims to cut off Glick's freedom of speech out of respect for Glick's father. Glick's father probably had the same views as Glick, and would be disgusted by this display by O'Reilly. How O'Reilly, who would have never even met Glick Sr., can claim to do anything out of respect for him as a "good American" is beyond me.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Thanz


The most sickening part of this is that O'Reilly claims to cut off Glick's freedom of speech out of respect for Glick's father.

Thanks for demonstrating how little people know about what the first amendment actually means.

[Mr Manifesto]

Say as you like. If someone opposed to your political idealogy talked to a relative of a 9/11 victim like that you'd be up in arms about and demanding someone's resignation. But I guess the rules for one don't apply to another.

[daredelvis]

Originally posted by Gregor
Enough with the whining Florida vote crap. Bush won in the first count. Bush won in the second count.

Then . . Did none of you notice that when all the votes were hand counted by the publishing consortium after the election was certified that Bush's lead widened?

You can dislike his policies, but for god's sake stop posting things that are factually inaccurate.


I am sorry, but HORSES**T!

1. There was never a second count (as called for under Florida law), only a re-tally of the totals.

2. The publishing consortium found Bush to be the winner in only one scenario. If the recount were done as outlined under Florida law (states rights?!??) Gore would have been the winner. It is clearly stated in the findings of the consortium.

For my sake please stop repeating things that are factually inaccurate. It was a coup.

Daredelvis

[Thanz]

Originally posted by corplinx


Thanks for demonstrating how little people know about what the first amendment actually means.

Oh, please. I know perfectly well what the first amendment means, and I know that it doesn't apply to O'Reilly's rude behaviour. I was using "freedom of speech" in a broader, figurative sense. Sorry if it didn't come across that way.

What I am appalled at is how someone who claims to be a journalist (in a "no spin zone", no less) can show so little regard for actual debate and exchange of ideas. He knew Glick's views when he invited him on the program, and then refused to actually debate him on those views simply stating that he doesn't care what he thinks. If that was so, why invite him on?

Worst of all is O'Reilly presuming to speak for the views of the man's father, whom he had never met, and implying that his parents would both be ashamed of him. This is nothing but a baseless personal attack, and does nothing to refute the arguments put forth by Glick. If his views are really so out there, they should be easy to debunk in an actual debate. Instead, O'Reilly puts on a show of caring for the victims of 9/11, ignoring that those people who died all had their own views of US foreign policy which may have conflicted with his own.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Thanz

Worst of all is O'Reilly presuming to speak for the views of the man's father, whom he had never met, and implying that his parents would both be ashamed of him.

This is the part that disturbed me the most. OReilly comes after him with "I hope your mother isn't watching?"?

I was also bothered about his pretentiousness, considering that he never met the guy's father, and basically the only thing he knew about him was that he died in the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Yet, he still thought he knew what the guy's father would be thinking.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Thanz


I'm surprised that you would say this as some sort of defence for O'Reilly, who invited a guy onto his show because he thought that as a family member of someone who died at the WTC he had some interesting world political views. O'Reilly then tells him, twice, that he refuses to debate world politics with him because he doesn't care what Glick thinks.

The most sickening part of this is that O'Reilly claims to cut off Glick's freedom of speech out of respect for Glick's father. Glick's father probably had the same views as Glick, and would be disgusted by this display by O'Reilly. How O'Reilly, who would have never even met Glick Sr., can claim to do anything out of respect for him as a "good American" is beyond me.


What are you talking about? The guy was ranting and was incapable of rational dialogue. Did you object when O'reilly treated the Christian fundy the same way?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Tony



What are you talking about? The guy was ranting and was incapable of rational dialogue. Did you object when O'reilly treated the Christian fundy the same way?

Why was it an irrational rant, and not simply trying to get a word in edgewise? Because you disagree with it, pure and simple.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Tony



What are you talking about? The guy was ranting and was incapable of rational dialogue.

So is that why OReilly threatened to tell his mommy?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Sundog


Why was it an irrational rant, and not simply trying to get a word in edgewise? Because you disagree with it, pure and simple.



Do you want me to answer the question, or should I just let you do it for me?

[voidx]

I can't believe we're even debating this. O'Reilly had an agenda, that's plain to see, he invited this guy on, family member to killed father from 9/11, who is anti-war, and blames the Bush's for past actions as responsible for the "Assination" of his father. O'Reilly didn't have any debating game plan but to use highly emotional comments about respect for his father, and his mother and his usual steam-rolling style of "interview/debate" to basically overwhelm the guy into embarrassment. To the guys credit he didn't really allow O'Reilly to do so, prompting him to cut his mic at the end in frustration. Do I agree with Glick's worldview, no, its a flawed view by many IMO, and I think the quoted interview with Brzezinski demostrates this superbly.

Read Brzezinski's last 2 comments, they are very telling and very true. Did we train and supply Apghan terrorists back during the Cold war? Yes. Did the US entirely expect them to come back 2 decades later and hit them so hard in a terrorist act? Maybe, but they were willing to take the chance. Did luring the Soviets into a "Vietnam" style war in Apghanistan at that time, furthering the collapse of what was seen as the worlds Communist threat, seem more important than arming a smaller band of apghan terrorists? Obviously. These are the games that Super powers play, this is foreign policy, and yes sometimes in the aftermath things bite you in the ass. Do the Bush's feel no remorse because your Pappy died during 9/11 because their foreign policy in the past made the situation possible? Of course not, the loss of innocent civilian life is not something they take lightly I'm sure, simply because they were involved in arguably dangerous foreign policy in the past. People in those positions are forced to make hard decisions, with sometimes hard consequences and I do not envy them their jobs. When you make a mistake, you might not have chicken for dinner, or Billy might be standing out in the cold waiting for his ride home from hockey practice. Like Brzezinski said, which would you have choosen, the arming of the Taliban, or the collapse of superpower Soviet Russia?

But regardless, O'Reilly went in expecting to tear this guy up, the guy didn't let O'Reilly get to him, since O'Reilly doesn't really have much information obviously on world politics to argue the guy with, his easy ploy to embarrass him was ruined, and he cut him short. Its not that hard to figure out. As mentioned, O'Reilly factor probably isn't the best place to get your fix of true open debate on today's current events.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Tony


Do you want me to answer the question, or should I just let you do it for me?

Just let me do it for you, please. :p

[Tony]

Originally posted by Sundog


Just let me do it for you, please. :p

http://www.forum.scullyspost.com/images/smilies/punch.gif http://www.forum.scullyspost.com/images/smilies/beerchug.gif

[corplinx]

Originally posted by voidx

Read Brzezinski's last 2 comments, they are very telling and very true. Did we train and supply Apghan terrorists back during the Cold war? Yes.


As far as I can tell, we never trained anyone to fly planes into buildings or to steer bomb laded boats into large ships. The "we trained them" thing is such a red herring.

We showed them how to shoot a rifle and how to fire a stinger. The "we trained osama" meme is just misleading propaganda. Thats why its conspiratorial garbage. The left wing woo-woos see this conspiracy of the US propping up people like Osama and Saddam just to later use them for target practice to expand our imperial desires.

We taught Timothy McVeigh to shoot a rifle also. However, we never trained him to mix fertilizer and gas and uhaul it up to a building.

Sorry, but "we trained osama so we are responsible" fails the most basic skepticism.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by corplinx


As far as I can tell, we never trained anyone to fly planes into buildings or to steer bomb laded boats into large ships. The "we trained them" thing is such a red herring.

We showed them how to shoot a rifle and how to fire a stinger. The "we trained osama" meme is just misleading propaganda. Thats why its conspiratorial garbage. The left wing woo-woos see this conspiracy of the US propping up people like Osama and Saddam just to later use them for target practice to expand our imperial desires.

We taught Timothy McVeigh to shoot a rifle also. However, we never trained him to mix fertilizer and gas and uhaul it up to a building.

Sorry, but "we trained osama so we are responsible" fails the most basic skepticism.

"What was America training Osama for?" would be a more relevant question.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


"What was America training Osama for?"

That has already been address in this thread. We were training the mujahadeen (sp?) to fight the soviets.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Tony


That has already been address in this thread. We were training the mujahadeen (sp?) to fight the soviets.

And in doing so you picked an amoral person for your crusade. Now your country is hoist by its own petard. And O'Reilly has the gall to say others who only want peace should be ashamed?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


And in doing so you picked an amoral person for your crusade.

Who else was there?


And O'Reilly has the gall to say others who only want peace should be ashamed?

People who only want peace should be ashamed, they are pussies. I want freedom, prosperity AND peace.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


And in doing so you picked an amoral person for your crusade. Now your country is hoist by its own petard. And O'Reilly has the gall to say others who only want peace should be ashamed?

Eh?

From MSNBC:
"As his unclassified CIA biography states, bin Laden left Saudi Arabia to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan after Moscow’s invasion in 1979. By 1984, he was running a front organization known as Maktab al-Khidamar - the MAK - which funneled money, arms and fighters from the outside world into the Afghan war.
What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify (in its unclassified form, at least) is that the MAK was nurtured by Pakistan’s state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the CIA’s primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow’s occupation"

In other words, we didnt train Osama or his cohorts (who were foreigners and not native afghans). We funneled aid from our CIA to the Paki ISI, to the MAK, which in turn funneled to Afghans.

The notion that Osama is a CIA trained rebel of some sort who turned on his masters is just rubbish. I am sad to see so many people buy this garbage. "We trained Osama" is the new "black helicopters".

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by corplinx


Eh?

From MSNBC:
"As his unclassified CIA biography states, bin Laden left Saudi Arabia to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan after Moscow’s invasion in 1979. By 1984, he was running a front organization known as Maktab al-Khidamar - the MAK - which funneled money, arms and fighters from the outside world into the Afghan war.
What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify (in its unclassified form, at least) is that the MAK was nurtured by Pakistan’s state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the CIA’s primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow’s occupation"

In other words, we didnt train Osama or his cohorts (who were foreigners and not native afghans). We funneled aid from our CIA to the Paki ISI, to the MAK, which in turn funneled to Afghans.

The notion that Osama is a CIA trained rebel of some sort who turned on his masters is just rubbish. I am sad to see so many people buy this garbage. "We trained Osama" is the new "black helicopters".

So the CIA used a bunch of false trails to keep the dirt off its hands.

Well that's okay then.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Tony


Who else was there?


And O'Reilly has the gall to say others who only want peace should be ashamed?

People who only want peace should be ashamed, they are pussies. I want freedom, prosperity AND peace.

In today's increasingly rabid pro-war envrionment the real brave people are the peace protesters and the 'pussies' those who stay silent in the shadow of the war mongers.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


So the CIA used a bunch of false trails to keep the dirt off its hands.

Well that's okay then.

Noone said its okay. It had to be done in such a manner as to not provoke the Soviets of course. The point is, there is _no_ evidence we _trained_ Osama or Al Queida.

Thanks for demonstrating diversion though.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by corplinx


Noone said its okay. It had to be done in such a manner as to not provoke the Soviets of course. The point is, there is _no_ evidence we _trained_ Osama or Al Queida.

Thanks for demonstrating diversion though.

So you are saying that America trained Osama in such a way as to keep dirt off its hands to keep from provoking the Soviets but there is no evidence of it?

You have me confused. It hopefully makes more sense to you.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


So you are saying that America trained Osama in such a way as to keep dirt off its hands to keep from provoking the Soviets but there is no evidence of it?

You have me confused. It hopefully makes more sense to you.

My woo woo meter is redlining.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by corplinx


My woo woo meter is redlining.

You can stop it redlining merely by explaining what you are talking about. I'm only paraphrasing what you yourself said.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


You can stop it redlining merely by explaining what you are talking about. I'm only paraphrasing what you yourself said.

I originally said the guy was a woo-woo for his florida coup, cia trained osama, etc conspiracy theories. I explained why "we trained the 9-11 hijackers" is baseless bunk. Are you being intentionally obtuse?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


In today's increasingly rabid pro-war envrionment the real brave people are the peace protesters and the 'pussies' those who stay silent in the shadow of the war mongers.


Yeah, its take a braaaaave person to hold a sign and yell. :rolleyes:

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by corplinx


I originally said the guy was a woo-woo for his florida coup, cia trained osama, etc conspiracy theories. I explained why "we trained the 9-11 hijackers" is baseless bunk. Are you being intentionally obtuse?

You may have explained the CIA didn't train Osama -well not quite but I admit it's impossible to prove a negative so we'll concede that point- but you still have shown that the CIA gave money to Osama even if it did take a few steps to do it. It still looks as though America was hoist by its own petard.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Tony



Yeah, its take a braaaaave person to hold a sign and yell. :rolleyes:

It takes a braaaaave person to sit on the couch and yell for the bombing of countries on the other side of the world.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


It takes a braaaaave person to sit on the couch and yell for the bombing of countries on the other side of the world.

Is this a personal hobby of yours?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Tony


Is this a personal hobby of yours?

He's a troll Tony, I'm putting him on ignore. He's like some kind of obtuse Bill Maher wanna-be.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Tony


Is this a personal hobby of yours?

Perhaps I was too subtle. Allow me to put it another way.

What's so brave about a pro-war stance?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Perhaps I was too subtle. Allow me to put it another way.

What's so brave about a pro-war stance?

Nothing really, when did I say there was something brave about a pro-war stance?

[Smalso]

What does bravery have to do with opposing war?

[Baker]

Originally posted by Cain
In Harper's Magazine I read a partial transcript of O'Reilly's interview with Jermey Glick, whose father died in one of the towers on 9/11. After the interview, Glick says O'Reilly told to "get the f*ck out of here before I tear you to pieces."

This comes from http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/oreillyglick.htm




Why does every conservative talk show host have their own hate page from the left?

That’s odds this is the first that I have heard of this story and it comes from an O'Reilly hate page.
This is a very serious accusation if where true it would have been on every major network in the US and would be known buy everyone.

However this is the first time any of us has heard about the story.

[voidx]

heheh wow, take it a run huh. Ok perhaps I should have phrased it, "We supplied them with aid and weapons and showed them how to use them, or didn't whatever." I never said we taught him terror tactics, or how to fly "planes into buildings". I'm actually agreeing with you if you'd stop a second and look. I was just mererly saying that Brzezinski admitted we went into Apghanistan, it was done to lure the soviets in, he had no regrets about doing it, it was the best thing to do at the time.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Baker




Why does every conservative talk show host have their own hate page from the left?

Yes like this (http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html) one.


That’s odds this is the first that I have heard of this story and it comes from an O'Reilly hate page.
This is a very serious accusation if where true it would have been on every major network in the US and would be known buy everyone.

However this is the first time any of us has heard about the story.

First time YOU heard the story. Anyway we're on the internet. Email O'Reilly and ask him if it's true or not. You could probably request the transcript from Fox.

[ithinksoiam]

Oh! Someone get rid of this ****-for-brains O'Reilly already!

Who gave this moron airtime? All those guys should be taken out and shot. End both their and our misery.

Fine interviewer he is! Yep. Treat your guests like **** and bask in the false shine of total and utter stupidity. Idiot.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

First time YOU heard the story. Anyway we're on the internet. Email O'Reilly and ask him if it's true or not. You could probably request the transcript from Fox.

I didn't make the claim besides my comment speaks for it self.

[Cain]

Why does every conservative talk show host have their own hate page from the left?
That’s odds this is the first that I have heard of this story and it comes from an O'Reilly hate page.
This is a very serious accusation if where true it would have been on every major network in the US and would be known buy everyone.
However this is the first time any of us has heard about the story.

This story is mostly unknown because the media echo chamber is almost exclusively reserved for conservative voices and views. If you doubt the veracity of this transcript, then pick up the May issue of Harper's Magazine (which I read personally). I only accessed the story from Oreillysucks.com/ because... a google search showed that this "hate page" had it. Tom Tomorrow's page also carried a portion of the transcript (which he said he got off lexis). It's real.


Originally posted by corplinx


Eh?

From MSNBC:
"As his unclassified CIA biography states, bin Laden left Saudi Arabia to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan after Moscow’s invasion in 1979. By 1984, he was running a front organization known as Maktab al-Khidamar - the MAK - which funneled money, arms and fighters from the outside world into the Afghan war.
What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify (in its unclassified form, at least) is that the MAK was nurtured by Pakistan’s state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the CIA’s primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow’s occupation"

In other words, we didnt train Osama or his cohorts (who were foreigners and not native afghans). We funneled aid from our CIA to the Paki ISI, to the MAK, which in turn funneled to Afghans.

The notion that Osama is a CIA trained rebel of some sort who turned on his masters is just rubbish. I am sad to see so many people buy this garbage. "We trained Osama" is the new "black helicopters".

Wow, this is an amazing misreading of the story, which you failed to link (and for good reason): http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp

_Yet the CIA, concerned about the factionalism of Afghanistan made famous by Rudyard Kipling, found that Arab zealots who flocked to aid the Afghans were easier to “read” than the rivalry-ridden natives. While the Arab volunteers might well prove troublesome later, the agency reasoned, they at least were one-dimensionally anti-Soviet for now. So bin Laden, along with a small group of Islamic militants from Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestinian refugee camps all over the Middle East, became the “reliable” partners of the CIA in its war against Moscow.

also: Though he has come to represent all that went wrong with the CIA’s reckless strategy there, by the end of the Afghan war in 1989, bin Laden was still viewed by the agency as something of a dilettante - a rich Saudi boy gone to war and welcomed home by the Saudi monarchy he so hated as something of a hero.

It should be pointed out that the evidence of bin Laden’s connection to these activities is mostly classified, though its hard to imagine the CIA rushing to take credit for a Frankenstein’s monster like this.

H*ll, the big text at the top of the article reads: "Osama bin Laden, our new public enemy Number 1, is the personification of blowback"

Congragulations, you spun an article to give it the exact of opposite of the intended meaning. O'Reilly would be proud. Oh, but please continue with the ad hominem attacks about the "woo woo" left-wing conspiracy theorists.

_________________________

Someone else made an important point earlier: imagine anyone to the left of Newt Gingrich interviewing a rabidly right-wing family member of one of the victims. If this victim wanted blood from the people of Afghanistan, and the journalist questioned these views, it would be deemed intolerably insensitive. Or imagine this interviewer screaming at their guest to "shut up" and insisting that his mic be cut.

That person would be fired within hours for failure to act responsibly PC -- that is, patriotically correct.

Susan Sontag was excoriated for her views shortly after the attacks. I ask conservatives what she said that was so inflammatory... none of them can remember. They just know she's evil.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Cain


Congragulations, you spun an article to give it the exact of opposite of the intended meaning. O'Reilly would be proud. Oh, but please continue with the ad hominem attacks about the "woo woo" left-wing conspiracy theorists.



I didnt misread the article, I just used the only cited material from the article. The article is _speculation_ that has an _unsupported_ conclusion (blowback).

Here's your sign.

[Mr Manifesto]

So... I am debating points of fact with someone who deliberately skews articles to support his ideology... and I'm the troll? :confused:

[Smalso]

ithinksoiam:
All those guys should be taken out and shot.

Interesting solution to the problem of dealing with those with whom we disagree, but unworkable. First Amendment and all that.

edit for spelling

[Lurker]

I don't know, Corplinx. It seems to me part of what you quoted from MSNBC was speculation as well. It just seems you quoted the speculation that supported your position. I was surprised at this coming from you.

Lurker

[gnome]

Originally posted by Gregor
Enough with the whining Florida vote crap. Bush won in the first count. Bush won in the second count.

Then . . Did none of you notice that when all the votes were hand counted by the publishing consortium after the election was certified that Bush's lead widened?

You can dislike his policies, but for god's sake stop posting things that are factually inaccurate.

Ok... a discussion of the vote recount really refutes a claim about voters that were never allowed to vote in the first place. Right.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by daredelvis
2. The publishing consortium found Bush to be the winner in only one scenario. If the recount were done as outlined under Florida law (states rights?!??) Gore would have been the winner. It is clearly stated in the findings of the consortium.

For my sake please stop repeating things that are factually inaccurate. It was a coup. Oh for christ sake, how many times does one have to correct the record?

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=327226#post327226

coup d'é·tat ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k d-tä)
n. pl. coups d'état (k) or coup d'états (d-täz)
The sudden overthrow of a government by a usually small group of persons in or previously in positions of authority.

I can't see how the events of the last election could even be argued to constitute a sudden overthrow of government. We were in an election. Clinton was termed out and the Supreme court made it's decision before the end of his term as president.

Ok, so that's a distinction without a difference perhaps.

After all of the counts and recounts and analysis of the outcome, had a full hand count been allowed to continue Bush would have won according to the NYTimes and others. Yes, there are arguments that had the ballots been counted using certain methods Gore would have won in more instances than Bush. However it is unlikely that those methods would have been used IIRC. (see below) Apparently the method that Bush preferred would have given the election to Gore, again IIRC. The best argument I think is that since the Supreme Court denied those questioning the outcome to continue with the hand count (for arguably specious reasons) we will never really know what method would have been chosen and who would have actually won.

There is an argument that the issue was for the State of Florida to decide and that the Supreme Court was out of its jurisdiction. Giving us another one of those little ironies. Republicans are usually for States rights while Democrats usually favor Federal superiority (forgive my wording, you get the gist).

In any event, one cannot say categorically that had the Supreme Court not intervened that Gore would have won. Absent that fact it is at best specious to argue that Bush with help from a conservative majority of the Supreme Court overthrew the government. Let me also say that scientifically the vote was a statistical tie. No hand count could overcome anomalies and variance in verfying that many votes. Human error alone would have a factor greater than the differences of most of the outcomes.

Nova Land provided the following in this thread.

"Gore wins in 6 of 9 scenarios: <http://www.gopbi.com/partners/pbpos...e_wins6of9.html>

If the U.S. Supreme Court hadn’t stopped the counting

Dec. 9 count/Counties' own standards -- Bush by 493

If the four counties Gore wanted to count had finished

Gore's four-county strategy -- Bush by 225

If all counties agreed to use the standard acceptable to most

Statewide count/Prevailing standards -- Gore by 60

If the 63 counties ordered to count had used one standard Dec. 9

Dec. 9 count/Uniform standard-- Bush by 430

If the 63 counties ordered to count had used their own standards

Statewide count/Custom standard -- Gore by 171

If all counties had used the Gore standard

Statewide count/ Most inclusive standard -- Gore by 107

If all counties had used the toughest standard

Statewide count/ Most restrictive standard -- Gore by 115

If all counties had used the Bush standard

Statewide count/Bush standard -- Gore by 105

[dingler44]

I can't believe the way people are jumping to O'Reilly's defense here. It doesn't matter how farfetched the interviewee's beliefs are... any interviewer with any integrity whatsoever would allow the subject to respond to his questions.

O'Reilly didn't like what Glick had to say... and he starting crying and pouting like a child... kicking and screaming! It's absolutely pathetic. And some of you think he did the right thing? haha! He disgraced all of you by showing that he couldn't hold up his own opinion with reason... he could only fall back on rage and temper tantrums!

How did O'Reilly get a TV spot anyway? Any idiot off the street could interview/argue the way he did here.

*note* I assumed the posted interview was quoted accurately

[daredelvis]

Originally posted by RandFan
Oh for christ sake, how many times does one have to correct the record?


Let me also say that scientifically the vote was a statistical tie. No hand count could overcome anomalies and variance in verfying that many votes. Human error alone would have a factor greater than the differences of most of the outcomes.

Nova Land provided the following in this thread.

"Gore wins in 6 of 9 scenarios: <http://www.gopbi.com/partners/pbpos...e_wins6of9.html>

If the U.S. Supreme Court hadn’t stopped the counting

Dec. 9 count/Counties' own standards -- Bush by 493

If the four counties Gore wanted to count had finished

Gore's four-county strategy -- Bush by 225

If all counties agreed to use the standard acceptable to most

Statewide count/Prevailing standards -- Gore by 60

If the 63 counties ordered to count had used one standard Dec. 9

Dec. 9 count/Uniform standard-- Bush by 430

If the 63 counties ordered to count had used their own standards

Statewide count/Custom standard -- Gore by 171

If all counties had used the Gore standard

Statewide count/ Most inclusive standard -- Gore by 107

If all counties had used the toughest standard

Statewide count/ Most restrictive standard -- Gore by 115

If all counties had used the Bush standard

Statewide count/Bush standard -- Gore by 105 The simple fact of the matter is that the Bush team prevented the recount that should have occurred under Florida law. I agree that it was a statistical tie. What I object to is the statement that the “votes were counted and recounted”. This is a bald faced lie repeated over and over by the Bush team. I does not matter how often it is repeated it is still a lie (like the need to eliminate the inheritance tax to save family farms).

The count by the papers may be open to interpretation, but under the standards that prevailed at the time in Florida Gore would have won.

The intervention by the federal court was disgusting. The equal protection argument was unbelievably offensive.

You have corrected no record.

Daredelvis

[Baker]

Originally posted by Cain

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cain
[B]

This story is mostly unknown because the media echo chamber is almost exclusively reserved for conservative voices and views. If you doubt the veracity of this transcript, then pick up the May issue of Harper's Magazine (which I read personally). I only accessed the story from Oreillysucks.com/ because... a google search showed that this "hate page" had it. Tom Tomorrow's page also carried a portion of the transcript (which he said he got off lexis). It's real.

Oh great the mainstream media has no problem attacking other conservatives why would Oreilly be any different until you can provide a better source then oreilly-sucks.com I’m not going to take the story at face value.

[Baker]

Originally posted by daredelvis
The simple fact of the matter is that the Bush team prevented the recount that should have occurred under Florida law. I agree that it was a statistical tie. What I object to is the statement that the “votes were counted and recounted”. This is a bald faced lie repeated over and over by the Bush team. I does not matter how often it is repeated it is still a lie (like the need to eliminate the inheritance tax to save family farms).

The count by the papers may be open to interpretation, but under the standards that prevailed at the time in Florida Gore would have won.

The intervention by the federal court was disgusting. The equal protection argument was unbelievably offensive.

You have corrected no record.

Daredelvis

Can you provide any evidence that Bush prevented the recount?
And that the votes were not recounted?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by daredelvis
The simple fact of the matter is that the Bush team prevented the recount that should have occurred under Florida law. \

You mean the recount of only 3 heavily democrat counties with standards lowered to levels low enough to get false positives? Yes, shame on his legal team for challenging that.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by daredelvis
The simple fact of the matter is that the Bush team prevented the recount that should have occurred under Florida law. I agree that it was a statistical tie. What I object to is the statement that the “votes were counted and recounted”. This is a bald faced lie repeated over and over by the Bush team. I does not matter how often it is repeated it is still a lie (like the need to eliminate the inheritance tax to save family farms). The votes were counted and recounted, that is no lie. There was a machine recount as is required by Florida law.

The count by the papers may be open to interpretation, but under the standards that prevailed at the time in Florida Gore would have won. Based on what? The NY Times and other papers don't think so. I don't think so. As I said, there is no objective evidence that he categorically would have won. It's all well and good to have an opinion but it's not fact. All of the scenarios rely on methods that are subject to human error. Regardless of what would have happened we would not know the exact outcome. It is not knowable.

The intervention by the federal court was disgusting. The equal protection argument was unbelievably offensive. Disgusting to you. You are entitled to your opinion. I respect it but I don't share it.

At some point people are going to have to get over this.

You have corrected no record. Not in your mind of course not. But I have stated the facts and others are capable of deducing for themselves what would have happened had the hand count would have continued.

And finaly there is no basis for calling what happened a coup.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Baker


Oh great the mainstream media has no problem attacking other conservatives why would Oreilly be any different until you can provide a better source then oreilly-sucks.com I’m not going to take the story at face value.

Uh, he did provide a better source than oreilley-sucks.com - Harper's Magazine. Available at better newstands and bookstores everywhere. The table of contents for the issue is here (http://www.harpers.org/newsstand/preview.php3).

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Baker


Oh great the mainstream media has no problem attacking other conservatives why would Oreilly be any different until you can provide a better source then oreilly-sucks.com I’m not going to take the story at face value.

Harper's doesn't have a full-content website. Here's the cover (http://www.harpers.org/newsstand/preview.php3) of the May 2003 edition, though. The story in question is listed under Readings.

Perhaps you might borrow Daddy's copy. Or buy it yourself. You might learn something.

[daredelvis]

Originally posted by RandFan
The votes were counted and recounted, that is no lie. There was a machine recount as is required by Florida law.


At some point people are going to have to get over this.

Not in your mind of course not. But I have stated the facts and others are capable of deducing for themselves what would have happened had the hand count would have continued.

And finaly there is no basis for calling what happened a coup.

There are sources that question the assertion that the full machine recount happened. I have listed two below.
What about the full manual recount called for under Florida law?
This is not something I will forget.

From press release for Jeffrey Toobin’s book http://www.randomhouse.com/features/toobin/press.html

“TOO CLOSE TO CALL also raises new questions about the conduct of the vote-counting in Florida. During the recount, spokesmen for the Bush campaign often said that the votes in Florida had been "counted and recounted." Florida law called for an "automatic" machine recount of votes in all elections decided by less than one-half percent, but Toobin reveals that more than a quarter of the six million votes in the state have never been recounted. Eighteen of Florida's sixty-five counties did not recount their votes because Katherine Harris, the Florida Secretary of State, did not instruct them to do so -- even though her office had previously insisted that all counties recount their votes in "automatic" recounts.”

At least one case I can find on the net where the second set of machine numbers did not match the first so the original tally was submitted.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/politics/2520704.htm
“George W. Bush overwhelmingly won Nassau, a quiet, picturesque county on Florida's northeastern coast best known for the lush golf and tennis resorts of Amelia Island and the historic port city of Fernandina Beach. But Gore filed suit and accused the county canvassing board members of misconduct after they decided to submit an original election night tally instead of a machine recount performed the next day that was 218 votes short.”
It goes on.

“Bush won the election night tally by 6,453 votes. But when workers did a machine recount the next day, as the law requires when the statewide result was so close, 218 votes vanished. The net effect was to shrink Bush's lead by 51 votes.”

Daredelvis

[Baker]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent

Perhaps you might borrow Daddy's copy. Or buy it yourself. You might learn something.


Can you try discussing the topic instead of resorting to adolescent insults?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by daredelvis
This is not something I will forget. Oh I am sure it will keep you up nights for years to come. And I'm sure you are just mad as hell that the Gore team sought to have oversees ballots disqualified (the ballots were eventually allowed in) or that Gore did not want to recount all counties only those that would benefit him. I'm sorry but the whole affair is over and there is no way to know if Gore won. There is plenty of evidence for you to find conspiracies and machinations if that is what you want. I'm sure that it can all be linked back to the tri-lateral commission or the protocols.

And I'm sure that you are still burning over the fact that there are lingering questions as to whether Kennedy beat Nixon in 1960. Of that elections Nixon said to those who urged him to challenge the results, "Then, too, the bitterness that would have been engendered by such a maneuver on my part would have done incalculable and lasting damage throughout the country."

For some there is some benefit to find truth were there is none. The election was a statistical tie and the final outcome cannot be known at a level that is greater than the anomalies and variances caused by human error and other variables. The simple fact that there are at least 9 different ways to count the votes and that they all produce different and contradictory results is evidence of this fact alone.

I understand your passion, I hope you can channel it into the next presidential election. It has already started and there are some candidates on the field. I personally thing John Edward has the best chance to unseat Bush. He has raised allot of money.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent

Harper's doesn't have a full-content website. Here's the cover (http://www.harpers.org/newsstand/preview.php3) of the May 2003 edition, though. The story in question is listed under Readings.

Perhaps you might borrow Daddy's copy. Or buy it yourself. You might learn something.

Originally posted by Baker

Can you try discussing the topic instead of resorting to adolescent insults?

I apologize, Baker. Ironic that I do so when the subject is Bill O'Reilly's ethics. I feel certain he would have said "Mommy's copy".

And even if your new subscription to Harper's is now already in the mail, I would still recommend bookmarking http://www.harpers.org/harpers-index/listing.php3

[Baker]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent




I apologize, Baker. Ironic that I do so when the subject is Bill O'Reilly's ethics. I feel certain he would have said "Mommy's copy".

And even if your new subscription to Harper's is now already in the mail, I would still recommend bookmarking http://www.harpers.org/harpers-index/listing.php3

I order a copy of the transcript from fox it should be in my e-mail tomorrow.
Not that I don't trust Harper but I plan on looking at both sides of the story.

[Smalso]

RandFan:

I personally thing John Edward has the best chance to unseat Bush.

Interesting. Edward may be a rookie, but it has already been shown that he is not a lightweight. Raising money is a good indicator of how he is taken within his own party, and Bush is certainly vulnerable on several fronts. The '04 election is shaping up to be anything but dull.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Baker


I order a copy of the transcript from fox it should be in my e-mail tomorrow.
Not that I don't trust Harper but I plan on looking at both sides of the story.

Please be sure to post the full transcript. I too do not want to use a transcript that is innacurate.