i do not give information out on here i guess you think i should obey
what you . as you no i dont follow order well.

if you were actually ever in the army at all you would have no problem
answering the question.

well i was were you i really dont have to answer i have my reasons. i no
what it is you trying to keep me from running your buddy bush down .
bush he will screw something up you like war in iraq why you still hear
not in iraq planes leaves everyday

you keep changing the subject when ever you get pressed to prove your
point. My war was Viet Nam, I didn't cut and run. Like I said IF you
were ever in the army you would have no problem stating your rank and
what job you had. There has to be more than one PFC in the army so you
wouldn't be giving away any personal information and I don't think being
a truck driver or whatever is any breach of your personal security
either. ON the other hand if you have never been in the army you would
not know what an MOS was.

well my war was gulf war.you minds well give up i,m not going to tell
you. dont you no that by now i did not run i new when to put my weapon
down. after two days being lost in iraq desert. i new refusing to fight
would be bad for me. i new i was going to jail but i no you dont
understand and never will i refuse to kill in a war i did not beleive.

Darn,

How do two people succeed in derailing an otherwise fascinating subject
for a great debate, and turn it into the silliest of back alley cat
fights, has got to be one of the necessary shortcomings we must accept
and cope with in a society that values free speech.

Anyhow, let's try and get back to massagetrade's opening premise:

"... advocate greater skepticism in our media consumption."

Bill O'reilly is not a politician, nor is he a clergyman, nor is a
journalist/newsman, nor is he in a role or professionnal capacity
(doctor, lawyer, law officer, etc.), where he is subjected to tell the
truth, all the truth and nothing but the truth, or where is credibility
is at stake.

Bill O'Reilly is a very successfull independent contractor, and a
'populistmeister' par excellence!!!

By definition, a populistmeister must pick a 'niche'!!! That's a 'box',
with very finite parameters inside which you perfect your craft, and
'market' your populist product.

A comparative 'product' to Bill O'Reilly's, might be Bill Maher's!
They are the two faces of the same coin. They know it full well, and in
my opinion could 'switch' sides in private, and argue just as
vigourously for the opposite camp.

Would you ask a comedian, a songwriter, a variety show, or a sitcom to
tell the truth, all the truth, and nothing but the truth??? Of course
not. Why ask it of an OPINION JESTER!!!

Now, with respect to "... greater skepticism in our media consumption",
or,
a healthier,
more objective,
rigorous and,
detached approach to treating information and forming our own opinions,
one must distinguish between 'opinionjesters' and 'populistmeisters',
whom are by their own admisssion, attention grabbers and ratings
steroids, from the more objective source of information, which in our
'consumerism' driven society, has become a rare commodity.

For objectivity, one has to resort to several sources; not just from
both sides of ONE coin, but from all sides of all sorts of coins. In
othe words, there is a whole world happening out there from millions of
'perspectives' other than the very limited and restrictive 'US centric
Democrate vs Rebublican' faces of ONE COIN (while it is a legitimate and
respectable coin, it is JUST ONE COIN. and just TWO FACES).

The US's, like any other country's opinionjesters, only play to the US
coin, regardless of the face they chose to exploit!

They 'manufacture' a huge media 'pamphletary' noise, pushing with little
concern for the truth, what their 'niche' side of the coin wants to
hear.

When I say with little concern for the truth here, I don't mean from a
moral standpoint: they don't necessarily intend to lie or deceive.
Their only 'job' is to speak exclusively to the 'ONE' side of the coin
divide: it's a 'job'. That is the very nature of the populists they are.
In their 'job' they are not objective by definition. They're biased.
They're seeking to reach like minded biased correspondents in the
public. And they don't lie about that.

But when you're truthfully declaring yourself resoundingly of 'ONE SIDE'
of 'ONE COIN', seeking what is true, IS NOT, what matters to you most.
Authentically seeking the truth MUST objectively comprise BOTH SIDES OF
ALL COINS!!!

Only standing for one side of one coin, is tantamount to defending 'to
death', those limited convictions and beliefs that make-up YOUR SIDE OF
THE COIN!!! Defending one's convictions, YES!!! But only defending one's
convictions, is refusing to think and accept other sides and other
coins, It calls for immobilism, and decay!!!

Now, back to the 'populists'. In their opinionjester role, they are
competing against a sea of opionionjesters 'wan'a'be's'.
The ones that make the best crafted and loudest noise, matching their
audience's static positions (cemented to one side of a coin), WINS!!!
Again, think of Bill O'Reilly for the one side, and Bill Maher for the
other side. Both have 'GREAT' respect for each other by the way. And I
must add, those two, and many other opinionjesters and populists play a
useful and constructive role in helping to reveal the degree of
schlerosis (immobility), or fluidity (mobility) of the electorate.

MAYBE, the first condition for 'healthy skepticism', leading to
objective thinking, and 'forwarding opinions', isn't to look for
someone whom agrees with you. There is NOTHING to gain from that. On
the contrary, maybe it is to seek out the ones with 'different'
opinions, and engage in a sincere and 'open-minded' debate; ready to
drop some positions, and to accept and integrate, after consideration,
the position of others!!!.

Thanks massagetrade!

I absolutely adore both Vole!!!!

gardenforge how can anyone boast about "serving" our country yet he
threw down his gun and RAN leaving his brothers in arms in the desert.
Then he gets courtmarshalled, thrown in the brigg for two years, BOASTS
he has "taken 2 bullets for serving"...SERVING WHHHHHAAAAAAT???

SERVING HARD TIME THATS WHAT!!!!

Both Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh
are clowns.

They should wear big floppy shoes
and red noses.

They make lame opinions, set up
straw men, then knock them down.

People seldom have a chance to
question them, because when they
do, they don't give them a chance
to talk, they just knock them down.

OPINION JESTERS!!! - CLOWNS!!!

Pretty close match there 'mnhiker' !

Oh I am so happy to have missed this one till
now. It has made for the most interesting read. Have not laughed this
hard in so long. With each post I wanted to comment, then came the
comment that would have outdone me. It was a marvelous read indeed.

At this point as far as I can tell, there are two things goin on here.
Those that are liberal and those that aren't. Those who report (the
media)and whatever they report on, and those who make conclusions based
on those report.

Point one - liberals. As I see it, those that are liberal tend to take
a LONG hard look at a much bigger picture than those who simply choose
to maintain a given perspective as dictated by a "party". Liberals are
watchdogs, for a long time they remained silent and watched. Then came
the days of freedom fighters, the days when those who were previously
less than equal, less than hetero, white, males, decided to be activists
for thier particular communities. These poeple have passed many
threshholds and have forced those who fear freedom for all to see that
liberals will no longer be happy watching. But we do know how to make
an argument.

Point two - So how many laws are scheduled to appear before the house,
the senate each session, each year? How many of you have actually read
the, in their entirety and how many of you have EVER, contacted your
elected official with your comments and request of them on how to vote?
Personally, I can name so many liberals who have done this, including
myself, but when I discuss these issues with my less liberal friends,
they are usually surprised and I'm sure at the end of the day, they
don't give it another thought.

Your job to protect this democracy is not done when your vote for your
choice of candidate has been cast. Yet, how many of you follow the
course, stay on top of that person you put in office? The liberals do,
few if any of my other friends seem intersted.

Tell me, is this just because of where I live, or is it like this
everywhere?

They are everywhere, Sheep, Baaaaaaaaaaaaa.......

Who is Bill O'Reilly?

Hes one of those wind bags that thinks his way is the only way, and when
someone disagrees with him he over talks them by attacking them because
its his show. LOL
I think the guests are idiots for even agreeing to go on his show. Its
the same everytime, they must either lie and trick the guest to get them
there, or the people are gluttins for punishment.

Violeazur said: "A comparative 'product' to Bill O'Reilly's, might be
Bill Maher's!
They are the two faces of the same coin. They know it full well, and in
my opinion could 'switch' sides in private, and argue just as
vigourously for the opposite camp.

Would you ask a comedian, a songwriter, a variety show, or a sitcom to
tell the truth, all the truth, and nothing but the truth??? Of course
not. Why ask it of an OPINION JESTER!!!

Now, with respect to "... greater skepticism in our media consumption",
or,
a healthier,
more objective,
rigorous and,
detached approach to treating information and forming our own opinions,
one must distinguish between 'opinionjesters' and 'populistmeisters',
whom are by their own admisssion, attention grabbers and ratings
steroids, from the more objective source of information, which in our
'consumerism' driven society, has become a rare commodity."


That's what bothers me, too-- that the "news media" has become gladiator
dumbshow in the modern version of the Roman Colosseum, abdicating its
responsibilities of Watchdog. And worse, the public, thus enthralled,
will never be clued in to the Visigoths coming over the hill (in our
case, the hill being Capitol Hill and the corporate lobbyists as the
Visigoths).

As to Fox's trademark 'Fair & Balanced', didn't a judge tell Fox "Nice
Try" during the lawsuit where the OhReally? Factor was trying to silence
Al Franken? I think of Fox's attempt at trademark puffery in terms of
something Margaret Thatcher once said:

"Being powerful is like being a lady-- if you have to tell people you
are... you aren't."

BTW, as to the the O'Reilly Factor's accuracy? A quick Google of 'Snopes
Bill O'Reilly' will turn up some links where the well-thought-of Urban
Legends site has indeed dinged him from time to time.

-Kerry O.

There are some news meadia that are actually interested in providing
honest and non-descrminitory reporting. Ok, so maybe they were playing
the numbers (the dollars numbers)game too. But there were over 30
newspapers who dropped Ann Coulter after being solicited to do so due to
her obviously biased and hate encouraging comments. Which goes to show
that a couple hundred thousand emails can make a newspaper make a change
that the public thinks is correct.

Maybe we need a few more hundred thousand emails to get so real truth!

*le sigh*

Whatever happened to Sticking to the Topic? I guess that went the way of
logical arguments that avoid circular reasoning, and other antiquated
and retarded methods of "proving" a particular notion.

As far as "sticking to the topic". Al Franken was mentioned, and is
worth metioning. He has an excellent way of demonstrating his point in
an unbiased manner. Not to mention, he DID write a book/chapter called
"Lying Liars and the Lies they tell"... or something like that.

Need more specific evidence than an entire chapter compiled by unbiased
supporters of the scientific method? Then why not check out Wikipedia on
logical falacies? Bill Oreilly is a genius of the emotional argument.
His "evidence" is identifiable by his "clever" rhetoric and his ability
to turn every point into an emotional argument.

What other proof do you need? BTW, I'm not a liberal, I'm a libretarian.

>> Bill Oreilly is a genius of the emotional argument. His "evidence" is identifiable by his "clever" rhetoric and his ability to turn every point into an emotional argument.

Yes! A key point here is that its not necessary to 'lie' to 'be
deceptive'. O'Reilly supporters make a good point (in another thread)
about how he would be taken to task for making blatantly, provably false
statements - but the less obvious forms of deception cause greater harm
to quality thinking and public discourse.

"Need more specific evidence than an entire chapter compiled by unbiased
supporters of the scientific method? Then why not check out Wikipedia on
logical falacies? Bill Oreilly is a genius of the emotional argument.
His "evidence" is identifiable by his "clever" rhetoric and his ability
to turn every point into an emotional argument."

And for extra credit, read the Wikipedia entry for 'yellow journalism'.
Compare Hearst and Pulitzer to Bile O'Reilly and Fox News and use the
data to evaluate the hypothesis "The more things change, the more they
stay the same."

Show your work. :)


-Kerry O.