Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Would You Shut Him Up?

Yet another voice out there trying to shut down other opinions. Wonder if he hangs out on the Humboldt blogs?

Same old, same old: Our side tells the truth, your's doesn't. It comes from all sides, but I'll have to admit to hearing most calls for complete exclusion of an opposing voice coming from those on the Left.

Actually saw an e- mail some years ago from a guy on the Redwood Peace and Justice Center e- mail list. It was in response to an e- mail comment I made suggesting some people being a little more open to hearing both sides of the issue, or some such. The guy said something along the line of, "Liberals tell the truth about things. Conservatives are always lying...".

How any sort of agreement can be come to when so many people feel the same way about the "other side" is beyond me.


At 9:25 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well we do want free speech, but poing out someone is lying (like our last two presidents have so handily done) is not wrong either.

At 10:28 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fred, turn in your Libertarian card!

At 11:54 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm with you Fred. I have long recognized that no side has a monopoly on lying. It has just always seemed to me that the left does it more. It also seems to me that the left is less tolerant of opposing views and condescending in general.

At 12:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

All that being said, Bill O'Reilly really is a lying sack of shit.

At 2:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whichever side you're on, it's the other side that's always lying or shutting down other opinions. It's just easier to see when the 'other guy' does it.

At 6:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Essentially you have the people blinded by money, and you have the folks pointing out the discrepencies.The haves and have nots. Dr. Seuss covers all of it.

At 7:30 PM, Blogger robash141 said...

I think Mr Combs has a point..

I think promoting blatant partisan political propaganda as historically accurate account of events. Then the station must run afoul of some kind of truth in advertising law.

I can't imagine that false advertising would be constitionally protected free speech.

I'm not in favor of canceling the show. In the piublic interest I think they should just run it with a disclaimer.

At 8:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That being said,Bill O'Reilly is aces.

At 8:44 PM, Blogger Carson Park Ranger said...

"Aces" means "foaming at the mouth," or "as shrill as a rabid dachshund"?

At 9:04 PM, Blogger Fred said...

robash wrote, "I think promoting blatant partisan political propaganda as historically accurate account of events.".

So; Because O'Reilly sees historical events in a different perspective or context than you do, you consdier that lying? I assume O'Reilly, and others, might well consider you to be lying should you give your own interpretation of those same events.

Nonetheless; While you and O'Reilly might hold different interpretations on just about any historical event (I don't know that. I'm sure you've watched O'Reilly much more than I have) you think TV stations should disclaim anything he says, but not do the same for you?

That's dangerous ground to stand on, in my opinion.

8:08 wrote, "That being said,Bill O'Reilly is aces.".

Assuming CPR's description of "Aces" is the same you hold, would it make it feel better or worse if you knew there are a fair number of people in this country who feel you're "aces"?

I could probably count on one hand the number of times I've watched the O'Reilly show, so I'm no expert, but I've never seen him say anything I knew, or felt, to be untrue. I may disagree with some things he's said, although I don't recall what they might have been.

I only remember parts of two shows I watched: One, where he pretty much talked over Libertarian Candidate for President, Harry Browne (but did give Harry the last word), and one show where he discussed same sex marriage, and came out in support of it, which surprised me if only from what I'd heard of O'Reilly.

At 9:05 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Oops, not one hand; I could probably count the number of times I've watched O'Reilly on two hands.

At 8:51 AM, Blogger robash141 said...

O'Reilly is not a good example Fred
O Reilly is a politcal commentator who is giving his opinion on current affairs.I expect partisan polemics from him because that is what he does, the only thing he does. .

This 911 program presents itself as a historically accurate recounting of events leading up to the 2001 terrorist attacks. This is not like fudging the facts in a dramatizartion about the Battle Of Hastings or some other distant histrical event.
911 still has massive policy implications for our country . Therfore it is important for the public to have an accurate as possible recounting of the events of the day..Not partisan polemics.

All i'm asking for is a little truth in advertising . Even a libertarian like you Fred should be able to get behind that.

At 10:05 AM, Blogger Nick Bravo said...

Personally, its hard for me to watch O'Reily because of the amount of disrespect he gives to people he disagrees with. Should he ever tell me to "shut up" he'd have a verbal fight on his hands.

Fred, since I am a local would you be willing to add my blog to you "local blogs" section. Afterall, you have Anon.R's blog listed.

At 2:38 PM, Blogger ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

robash141 is right in observing that O'Reilly's "show" is OPINION. His style of presentation is not to my taste and he (being a "journalist") appears to be an opportunist. Perhaps those who comment here can cite specific "lies" he has committed other than attempting (unsuccessfully in most cases) to limit "talk-over". Without any such citation, the epithet "liar" is nothing more than an ad hominem attack. As for Dr. Sowell whom I read with regularity; one may disagree with his opinions, but I am unaware of him having ever engaged in lying. If Mr Foot or any who comment here can cite examples of his lying I would be surprised. Most of what today is categorized as "history" is really "theory of history" as knowledge of all the pertinent facts is impossible. For one "interesting" take on 911 one need only read Scholars for 911 Truth. The left has an annoying habit of dismissing out of hand as liars many who simply disagree with them.

At 3:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

See Al Franken's book "Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them: A Fair and Balanced look at the Right".It's full of instances of both O'reilly and fox news' LIES. It truly is worth a read even if your conservative. It is both super sad and laughable.

At 3:52 PM, Anonymous mresquan said...

Fred,I'm curious why you've chosen to pick on this piece and did not jump on Glenn Franco Simmons for urging folks to boycott Micheal Shellenberger?

At 5:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

On two occasions, Bill O'reilly claimed to have won the Peabody Award. He never has.Google. LIES, HA!

At 7:12 PM, Blogger ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

"lie 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood."
Wikipedia: ""The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page."
It may not have been accurate but does not qualify under the definition.
Sorry. Shall we discuss the meaning of "is"?

At 8:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're lying, you're not sorry.Georgia peach.

At 7:42 AM, Blogger Fred said...

Esquan asks, "Fred,I'm curious why you've chosen to pick on this piece and did not jump on Glenn Franco Simmons for urging folks to boycott Micheal Shellenberger?".

Well, I suppose because I didn't pay that much attention to it. There is a difference there, as well:

Glenn F-S was asking...ok...URGING people, to not attend his event. I don't believe he suggested Shellengerger not be allowed to hold his event. Did he?

If so, I missed it. As I said, I didn't pay all that much attention to it at the time.

At 7:52 AM, Blogger Fred said...

Robash wrote, "All i'm asking for is a little truth in advertising.".

Understood, but the bottom line as I see it, is that someone is going to have to decide what's permissible to say and what's not. Right?

Someone's going to decide what the truth is and isn't. Who do we put in charge of that?

I kind of enjoy all the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I find them far fetched, for the most part, but fun to read. So, should you put ME in charge of the Truthness Committee? What if I decide the some accounts of 9/11 aren't what I feel are accurate accounts?

Should I disallow their publication or broadcast? Should I require stations broadcasting such to issue a disclaimer before the broadcast? Who will I decide requires a disclaimer and who shouldn't require one?

Do you want me to decide that? If not, who do you want deciding it? Seems to me somebody's going to have to.

Either that, or let let readers and listeners decide for themselves what to believe?

At 7:59 AM, Blogger Fred said...

Nick Bravo asks,"Fred, since I am a local would you be willing to add my blog to you "local blogs" section.".

Gee, Nick, I can't have EVERYONE on my blog list. Besides, what if you head on back to Nebraska next week? You wan't me to go through all the effort to add your blog to my list only to have to have to possibly remove it?

But, you are here and you are a fairly regular contributor to the local blogs, albeit NOT ALWAYS in the most productive way. Give me some time here and I'll see if I can work you in, AFTER I check your blog and see how you're doing with it.

At 8:11 AM, Blogger Fred said...

I wrote, "AFTER I check your blog and see how you're doing with it.".

I mean, I have to check and see if you're being truthful on your blog before I allow you on my blog list. Right?

At 12:31 PM, Blogger Nick Bravo said...

I'm not leaving Humboldt anytime soon.

At 1:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The Magical Mystery Tour is waiting to take you away, hoping to take you away, take you taday."

At 10:16 AM, Blogger robash141 said...

Who decides, the viewers of course.

However, in the public interest, the station can give thenm some information that can help them to make an informed decision.

If parts of the movie contradict sworn testimony given to the 911 commision. . Then it is fair to say that it is not historically accurate.

The public should know this before they watch.


Post a Comment

<< Home