Bill O’Reilly says Christianity is not a religion

Bill O’Reilly says Christianity is not a religion November 29, 2012

This is a hilarious video. I thought Bill O’Reilly was a tool before this. Now I think he is a total tool. With a cherry on top.

 


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Andy_Schueler

    Billo the clown at his best. Although I´m pretty sure what we saw here was him having a stroke on live television. 

  • We hear this time and time again from believers, “Christianity is a relationship not a religion” but I have never heard that it is a “philosophy NOT a religion”. This is patently false on both accounts.

  • Andy_Schueler
  • ThePrussian

    The following is worth the read:

    http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-dumb-celebrities-who-are-way-smarter-than-you-think/

      There’s a strong case there that O’Reilly is doing this deliberately, better to make good money.

    • Andy_Schueler

      Very interesting article. 

       There’s a strong case there that O’Reilly is doing this deliberately, better to make good money.

      Sounds plausible, I also wouldn´t be surprised if the same is true about Ann Coulter.

      • ThePrussian

        Not too sure about Coulter; I think that she’s overcompensating, trying to be more tough guy than she is. 

          In proof I present the definition of intellectual overkill: the Hitch reviewing Ann Coulter :-Dhttp://www.theliberal.co.uk/hitchens.htm

        • Your link does not seem to work for me…

          • It seems to be OK for me. Try it again.

          • ThePrussian

            Try googling “Hitchens Coulter” then. 

  • Andy_Schueler

    It also seems that wingnuts like Billo don´t understand how language works. Using the words “fascist”, “socialist” or “Nazi” to label everyone that disagrees with you, no matter over how trivial a subject (and no matter if the disagreement has anything to do with what these words actually mean) means that these words loose all power and meaning.
    The first time I have seen a fucktard from Fox news comparing Obama to Hitler and democrats to the Nazis I was shocked, but they do it so often nowadays that these comparisons have lost all shock value (see for example: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/05/13/866076/-Lewis-Black-Glenn-Beck-has-Nazi-Tourette-s ).
    All it is, is a constant reminder that those fucktards at Fox news are as ignorant about history as they are about everything else. 

    • Wasn’t it David who said the other day about FOX:

      “”But your comment about FOX NEWS is equally ironic, except without the self-awareness.  In fact, Fox News is a pretty fair, and professional, news organization, that would never pull such a stunt as I am occasionally subject to: you are probably thinking of some commentators later in the day, like Sean Hannity.  Nor, for that matter, would Bill O’Reilly do that, over whom people on the Left have gritted many teeth and pounded many tables. ”

      ????!!!!

  • christthetao

    Jonathan: Actually, I was laughing at Bill last night with my high school son.  I told him, “Next time he wants to argue about religion, Bill should have me come on.  He says the most ridiculous things on this subject.” 

    This is a concept a lot of people have a hard time grasping.  The world is not divided into “smart” and “stupid” people.  Almost everyone is a genius on some subjects, and a total numbskull on others — and those subjects can be as finely divided as you like. 

    Here’s the brilliant biologist PZ Myers, conducting purge trials of dissident atheists, for example:
    http://christthetao.blogspot.com/2012/11/pz-myers-guru-of-hate-and-timidity.html

    Just posted that a little while ago, by coincidence.  Myers really is smart, but the ratio of stupidity times venility to copy in this thread is about 500 times that in yesterday’s Factor, IMHO.

    • Andy_Schueler

      This is a concept a lot of people have a hard time grasping.  The world is not divided into “smart” and “stupid” people.  Almost everyone is a genius on some subjects, and a total numbskull on others — and those subjects can be as finely divided as you like.

      As ThePrussian correctly pointed out, it´s well possibly that O´Reilly is just playing the village idiot because this works for his target audience.
      But setting aside whether he honestly believes the garbage he´s spewing in his show or not, the question remains why everyone at Fox News is (or is playing) such a complete and utter moron when it comes to this “war on christmas” nonsense (or any other first amendmend issue). Similarly, why is everyone at Fox News too stupid (or pretending to be too stupid) to look up what “socialism”, “communism” or “fascism” means ? Why did Fox News give a raving lunatic like Glenn Beck a show ? 
      Your assessment of Fox News being “fair and professional” is just ridiculous.

      • christthetao

        Andy: I know very well what “socialism” and “communism” mean, and don’t find usage of the terms that bad on Fox, except maybe with Hannity, who is not a news guy.  And I remember very well what Reagan did, and am deeply proud of casting my first national vote for him.

        The fact that you fail to distinguish between Fox News and O’Reilly, who has a commentary show, suggests that your own assessment is scewed. 

        • Andy_Schueler

          Andy: I know very well what “socialism” and “communism” mean, and don’t find usage of the terms that bad on Fox.

          So you agree that a billionaire who thinks that he should be effectively taxed at at least as high rates as his cleaning lady is a socialist  and you also think that Barack Obama is a socialist  ? If you really think that the usage of those terms is “not that bad” on Fox News, you don´t have the foggiest idea what they mean.  

          And I remember very well what Reagan did, and am deeply proud of casting my first national vote for him.

          Yeah, remember how he never raised taxes ? 

          The fact that you fail to distinguish between Fox News and O’Reilly, who has a commentary show, suggests that your own assessment is scewed. 

          Ah, is that supposed to be the argument that Fox News might have zero standards and would even give a show to a raving lunatic like Glenn Beck, but their news anchors are not complete morons ? I have seen little difference in quality between the actual news anchors and the other clowns that are given a soapbox by Fox News. 
          To name just the latest outrageously biased example – every news coverage for the two Obama-Romney debates and the Biden-Ryan debate that I have seen argued, that Obama was absolutely horrible in the first debate, better in the second, and Joe Biden mopped the floor with Paul Ryan. Well, every single news coverage I have seen except for one – Fox News. 
          http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-15-2012/democalypse-2012—v-p–debate–battle-for-the-historical-footnote—joe-biden
          Fair and professional ? You´ve just got to be kidding.

          • This op-ed appeared in the Washington Post, a Conservative newspaper, railing against the lack of fairness in FOX News, and Roger Ailes, their chief:

            Through clever use of the Fox News Channel and its cadre of raucous commentators, Ailes has overturned standards of fairness and objectivity that have guided American print and broadcast journalists since World War II. 

            Yet, many members of my profession seem to stand by in silence as Ailes tears up the rulebook that served this country well as we covered the major stories of the past three generations, from the civil rights revolution to Watergate to the Wall Street scandals. This is not a liberal-versus-conservative issue. It is a matter of Fox turning reality on its head with, among other tactics, its endless repetition of its uber-lie: “The American people do not want health-care reform.

            “Fox repeats this as gospel. But as a matter of historical context, usually in short supply on Fox News, this assertion ranks somewhere between debatable and untrue.The American people and many of our great modern presidents have been demanding major reforms to the health-care system since the administration of Teddy Roosevelt. The elections of 1948, 1960, 1964, 2000 and 2008 confirm the point, with majorities voting for candidates supporting such change.Yet congressional Republicans have managed effective campaigns against health-care changes favored variously by Presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Clinton.Now Fox News has given the party of Lincoln a free ride with its repetition of the unexamined claim that today’s Republican leadership really does want to overhaul health care — if only the effort could conform to Mitch McConnell’s ideas on portability and tort reform.It is true that, after 14 months of Fox’s relentless pounding of President Obama’s idea of sweeping reform, the latest Gallup poll shows opinion running 48 to 45 percent against the current legislation. Fox invariably stresses such recent dips in support for the legislation, disregarding themajorities in favor of various individual aspects of the reform effort.Along the way, the network has sold a falsified image of the professional standards that developed in American newsrooms and university journalism departments in the last half of the 20th century.Whatever its shortcomings, journalism under those standards aspired to produce an honest account of social, economic and political events.It bore witness to a world of dynamic change, as opposed to the world of Foxian reality, whose actors are brought on camera to illustrate a preconceived universe as rigid as that of medieval morality.Now, it is precisely our long-held norms that cripple our ability to confront Fox’s journalism of perpetual assault. I’m confident that many old-schoolers are too principled to appear on the network, choosing silence over being used; when Fox does trot out a house liberal as a punching bag, the result is a parody of reasoned news formats.My great fear, however, is that some journalists of my generation who once prided themselves on blowing whistles and afflicting the comfortable have also been intimidated by Fox’s financial power and expanding audience, as well as Ailes’s proven willingness to dismantle the reputation of anyone who crosses him. (Remember his ridiculing of one early anchor, Paula Zahn, as inferior to a “dead raccoon” in ratings potential when she dared defect to CNN?)It’s as if we have surrendered the sword of verifiable reportage and bought the idea that only “elites” are interested in information free of partisan poppycock.Why has our profession, through its general silence — or only spasmodic protest — helped Fox legitimize a style of journalism that is dishonest in its intellectual process, untrustworthy in its conclusions and biased in its gestalt?The standard answer is economics, as represented by the collapse of print newspapers and of audience share at CBS, NBC and ABC. Some prominent print journalists are now cheering Rupert Murdoch, the head of News Corp. (which owns the Fox network) for his alleged commitment to print, as evidenced by his willingness to lose money on the New York Post and gamble the overall profitability of his company on the survival of the Wall Street Journal This is like congratulating museums for preserving antique masterpieces while ignoring their predatory methods of collecting.Why can’t American journalists steeped in the traditional values of their profession be loud and candid about the fact that Murdoch does not belong to our team?His importation of the loose rules of British tabloid journalism, including blatant political alliances, started our slide to quasi-news His British papers famously promoted Margaret Thatcher’s political career, with the expectation that she would open the nation’s airwaves to Murdoch’s cable channels. Ed Koch once told me he could not have been elected mayor of New York without the boosterism of the New York Post.As for Fox’s campaign against the Obama administration, perhaps the only traditional network star to put Ailes on the spot, at least a little, has been his friend, the venerable Barbara Walters, who was hosting This Week, ABC’s Sunday morning talk show More accurately, she allowed another guest, Arianna Huffington, to belabor Ailes recently about his biased coverage of Obama. Ailes countered that he should be judged as a producer of ratings rather than a journalist — audience is his only yardstick.While true as far as it goes, this hair-splitting defense purports to absolve Ailes of responsibility for creating a news department whose raison d’etre is to dictate the outcome of our nation’s political discourse.For the first time since the yellow journalism of a century ago, the United States has a major news organization devoted to the promotion of one political party.And let no one be misled by occasional spurts of criticism of the GOP on Fox. In a bygone era of fact-based commentary typified, left to right, by my late colleagues Scotty Reston and Bill Safire, these deceptions would have been given their proper label: disinformation.Under the pretense of correcting a Democratic bias in news reporting, Fox has accomplished something that seemed impossible before Ailes imported to the news studio the tricks he learned in Richard Nixon’s campaign think tank:He and his video ferrets have intimidated center-right and center-left journalists into suppressing conclusions — whether on health-care reform or other issues — they once would have stated as demonstrably proven by their reporting. I try not to believe that this kid-gloves handling amounts to self-censorship, but it’s hard to ignore the evidence. News Corp., with 64,000 employees worldwide, receives the tender treatment accorded a future employer.In defending Glenn Beck on ABC, Ailes described him as something like Fox’s political id, rather than its whole personality It is somehow fitting, then, that Sigmund Freud’s great-grandson, Matthew Freud, might help put mainstream American journalism back in touch with its collective superego.This year, Freud, a public relations executive in London and Murdoch’s son-in-law, condemned Ailes in an interview with the New York Times, saying he was “ashamed and sickened by Roger Ailes’s horrendous and sustained disregard” of proper journalistic standards.Meanwhile, Gabriel Sherman, writing in New York magazine, suggests that Freud and other Murdoch relatives think Ailes has outlived his usefulness — despite the fact that Fox, with its $700 million annual profit, finances News Corp.’s ability to keep its troubled newspapers and their skeleton staffs on life support. I know some observers of journalistic economics who believe that such insider comments mean Rupert already has Roger on the skids.It is true that any executive’s tenure in the House of Murdoch is situational. But grieve not for Roger Ailes. His new contract signals that when the winds of televised demagoguery abate, he will waft down on a golden parachute.By News Corp. standards, he deserves it. After all, Ailes helped make Murdoch the most powerful media executive in the United States.As for Fox News, lots of people who know better are keeping quiet about what to call it. Its news operation can, in fact, be called many things, but reporters of my generation, with memories and keyboards, dare not call it journalism.Howell Raines is a former executive editor of the New York Times and the author of “The One That Got Away: A Memoir.”http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2010/03/11/ST2010031102527.html?sid=ST2010031102527

          • christthetao

            Jonathan: Washington Post is a “Conservative newspaper?”   You’re posting from a planet in which galaxy, now? 

            The left-wing media hates the competition, of course.  This is no surprise. 

            But the rant is just moronic.  Fox “endlessly repeats as gospel” the fact that “the American people do not want health reform?”  Utter malarky.  The only question, ever, has been HOW to reform the broken American health care system, not WHETHER to do so. 

          • christthetao

            Andy: It’s hard to take someone seriously who conflates Glenn Beck with “Fox News,” as you do in your first post in this thread. 

            Yes, I do have a decent idea what socialism and communism mean.  As a matter of fact, my BA senior thesis was a linguistic comparison of different phases in the Soviet and Chinese communist movements, as reflected in key Russian and Chinese documents.  My adviser was the founding editor of the Slavic Review, and head of the history department at University of Washington. 

            But apparently all you really mean is that you found some slighting reference to Obama by someone-or-other on Fox by a google search.  And this is supposed to outweigh actual familiarity with the network. 

            No one I heard on Fox denied that Obama did better in the second debate.  I watched all four debates, and don’t need reporters to tell me how they went.  Biden did very well rhetorically, except for the little fact that many of his little facts happened to be lies.  I wouldn’t say he “mopped the floor” with Ryan: he had a fairly strong rhetorical showing, lying and cackling and interrupting and acting like an absolute buffoon throughout.  No doubt that appealed to leftists, and his complete lack of dignity and propriety may have thrown Ryan off his game a bit, as planned.  But he certainly didn’t exhibit his fitness for the office of Commander in Chief. 

          • Andy_Schueler

            Andy: It’s hard to take someone seriously who conflates Glenn Beck with “Fox News,” as you do in your first post in this thread. 

            I´m not conflating, “Fox News” is a cable news channel and they did give a raving lunatic like Glenn Beck for more than 2 years. You try the same dishonest stunt that Fox News tried when they defended themselves against accusations that Beck is just too insane for television “it´s only a commentary, that´s entertainment, not news, so he can lie as much as he wants – our news anchors are totally fair and professional!”. Nice try, your dishonesty has been noted. 

            Yes, I do have a decent idea what socialism and communism mean.  As a matter of fact, my BA senior thesis was a linguistic comparison of different phases in the Soviet and Chinese communist movements, as reflected in key Russian and Chinese documents.  My adviser was the founding editor of the Slavic Review, and head of the history department at University of Washington. 

            That does not mean that you actually learned something about socialism or communism, you apparently did not. 

            But apparently all you really mean is that you found some slighting reference to Obama by someone-or-other on Fox by a google search.  And this is supposed to outweigh actual familiarity with the network. 

            Since you are still defending Eric Bolling referring to Warren Buffett as being “completely a socialist” and you think 35 references (within just 9 days) to Obama and his politics being “socialist” is an appropriate use of the term “socialist” – you loose any credibility to talk about this subject. Your understanding of the term “socialism” is worse than non-existent, you know nothing about it, but think you know quite a lot, Dunning-Kruger effect in action. 

            Biden did very well rhetorically, except for the little fact that many of his little facts happened to be lies.  I wouldn’t say he “mopped the floor” with Ryan: he had a fairly strong rhetorical showing, lying and cackling and interrupting and acting like an absolute buffoon throughout. 

            Fair and professional assessment, just like Fox News did. And nicely parroted  – here´s a cookie for you.

  • christthetao,
    [[I challenged biologist PZ Myers to a debate over the impact Christianity has had on women. ]]

    What a stupid subject to debate. Whether or not Christianity has done anything good or bad is not the issue on whether or not it is true.

    Reminds me of a quote from Bertrand Russell:

    “A thing is either true or it isn’t. If it is true you believe in it, if it is not then you don’t. And in case you cannot decide if it is true or not, then you suspend judgment. But it is a fundamental dishonesty and fundamental treachery to intellectual integrity to hold a belief because you think it is useful and not because you think it is true.”

  • christthetao

    Grove: Bullocks.  Bertrand Russell himself yapped his mouth off on that very subject, with great ignorance.  So aside from historical error, you think he was also guilty of “fundamental dishonesty” for even raising the subject? 

    Russell would have benefitted from attending the debate, and having his historical ignorance corrected. 

    And you would benefit by distinguishing between a legitimate debate over the impact of an ideology, from a potentially (but not necessarily) illegitimate debate from that impact to its truth.

    • It’s true some have argued that Christianity has been detrimental to society as well as some have argued that Christians are more generous. (See ‘Morality Without God’ by Armstrong), but my point is why bother. I am not concerned with how zen buddhism or meditation can alleviate high blood pressure, I am more interested in whether these religious propositions are in fact true.

      Personally, I wouldn’t even want to be drawn into a debate in which to me is simply meaninglessness EXCEPT if Christianity was in fact engaging in ideals that were detrimental or demeaning to women. For example if Jehovah’s Witnesses deny a blood transfusion to their child on religious grounds, than yes, you will find me opposing that. But if it whether or not women should be preachers or feel demeaned because some churches say they cannot, then that is a fight that they have with their brethren. It has nothing to do with secular society by and large. But if Christians who have a political force oppose homosexuals purely on religious grounds and are bigoted towards them, then I think a debate needs to be had. Unfortunately those debates do not seem to go anywhere, except to demonstrate how Christianity is bankrupt again and again.

      Certainly the Taliban or Islam mistreating women becomes a secular issue, so you have a point, but it seems to me you are trying to draw people into a meaningless debate simply because you just like the art or practice of debating. Christians love the “show” of debate, especially when they get their pokes (dunderhead, etc..) in.

      Your self aggrandizement aside, and having seen you in action on many fronts, you are not even worth having a discussion with quite frankly.

      • Easy John…

      • christthetao

        Well, fine, that’s your personal interest, and I respect that.  I’m interested in both issues, as I think most atheists are, too.  And they are connected, though not directly. 

        As for Christianity being “bankrupt,” just read through my list of books showing how Christianity has changed the world for the better, a few days ago in a post called “How Christ Liberates Humanity: 123 Proof Texts.”  Far from being bankrupt, I would argue that the Gospel is the very ground on which the best secular humanists stand.  The worst, well read the PZ thread. 

        Since you yourself seem to admit the vacuity of the comments you just made above, for the reasons I gave, your cheap slap at me (“not worth having a discussion with”) is an understandable defensive mechanism, but not very convincing.  But you are, of course, free to engage my comments, or not: next time, just don’t answer them, and you will have your wish. 

  • Pingback: The bottomless pit of venom (targeting atheists) known as Fox News | No Cross No Crescent()

  • [[Next time he wants to argue about religion, Bill should have me come on.]]

    Glad we have such smart people like you around who can tell us what Christianity “really” is. How many of you atheists have heard the no true scotsman fallacy uttered like a mantra? Christians argue with themselves so much about doctrine that the only time they are in agreement with anything is when they oppose atheism. Other than that they are divided on every subject and each one in their corner thinks they have a handle on the “truth” better than the next one. And each one is as cocky and arrogant as christthetao.

  • The only bollocks around here is the dross spouted by Fox News.

    Andy I do find it very interesting to think whether O’Reilly believes what he says. We already know from his personal life that he is obviously not the cream of the moral crop if out-of-court settlements worth millions of dollar are anything to go by. And he has the audacity to sit there and proclaim moral rectitude and righteousness over others! Wow.

    Anything for the money, eh?

    • Andy_Schueler

      We already know from his personal life that he is obviously not the cream of the moral crop if out-of-court settlements worth millions of dollar are anything to go by. And he has the audacity to sit there and proclaim moral rectitude and righteousness over others! 

      That reminds me of the hilarious distribution of rates for divorces, teenage pregnancy and porn consumption – the deep red states have far higher rates then the blue states:
      http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/st_DIVORCE_20100813.html
      http://danielmiessler.com/blog/divorce-rates-teen-births-and-porn-use-republican-states-lead-the-way
      and they simultaneously try to paint themselves as being “pro-family”, this is just breathtaking hypocrisy…

    • christthetao

      Jonathan: “The only bollocks around here is the dross spouted by Fox News.”

      Well, I’m glad to be excluded, this time.  But does that mean you find PZ’s witch hunts against fellow atheists intellectually appealing?  Or Bertrand Russell’s Dan Brown-like claim that “millions” of women were burnt as witches by Christians?  (Why I am not a Christian, chapter 1) Or that “no orthodox Christian can find any logical reason” for condemning the practice of baptizing babies, then dashing their brains out? (chapter 2) 

      I defy you to cite anything from Bill O’Reilly, or maybe even Pat Robertson, though there admittedly you might stand a chance, that reaches that scale of ludicrousness. 

      • “I just wish Katrina had only hit the United Nations building, nothing else, just had flooded them out, and I wouldn’t have rescued them.” –radio show, Sept. 14, 2005
         On his September 19, 2007 radio program, while discussing his recent dinner at a famous restaurant in Harlem, Bill O’Reilly said, “I couldn’t get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia’s restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it’s run by blacks, primarily black patronship.” O’Reilly later added, “There wasn’t one person in Sylvia’s who was screaming, ‘M-Fer, I want more iced tea.’ You know, I mean, everybody was — it was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of people were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun. And there wasn’t any kind of craziness at all.”

         While hosting a charity event for an urban school back in 2003 where an African-American singing group called “The Best Men” were late to show up, O’Reilly quipped to the largely black audience,“Does anyone know where the Best Men are? I hope they’re not in the parking lot stealing our hubcaps.”

        “Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can’t explain that. You can’t explain why the tide goes in.”

        “Okay, how’d the moon get there? Look, you pinheads who attacked me for this, you guys are just desperate. How’d the moon get there? How’d the sun get there? How’d it get there? Can you explain that to me? How come we have that and Mars doesn’t have it? Venus doesn’t have it. How come? Why not? How’d it get here? How did that little amoeba get here, crawl out there? How’d it do it?”

        “Look, there are a lot of very brilliant scholars who believe the reason we have incomplete science on evolution is that there is a higher power involved in this and you should consider it as a scientist. 

        I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that, Professor. And I think the people like the ACLU, who don’t want you to mention it in your biology class, are the Taliban. I think THEY are the ones that are infringing on the rights of all American students by not allowing that to be at least considered.”
        Then there was Bill with Jeremy Glick, his time on the Colbert show (just embarrassing),the sexual harassment scandal etc.

        “Keith Olbermann noticed something odd in O’Reilly’s interviews with General Wesley Clark, a decorated soldier with combat experience in Vietnam among other accolades in his resume.  The two debated the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in which American guards had taken degrading pictures of the inmates in embarassing positions.  Not surprisingly, O’Reilly dismissed the scandal by saying that Americans have always done things like that.  Why that makes it OK and why he didn’t just admit that he could care less because the victims have a different skin color than his own is still in question.  O’Reilly proceeded to cite an example of American atrocities in World War II, claiming that in the Belgian city of Malmedy, American troops massacred unarmed and surrendering German SS troops.  He made the claim more than once.  In fact, it was the other way around.  American troops surrendered to German troops, and the Germans executed the unarmed Americans, and left their bodies in crude graves to freeze.  The evidence was found over a month later. ”

        • christthetao

          Your examples: O’Reilly wishes the UN would get rained on, expresses surprise at a cross-cultural experience, tells a bad joke (context?), expresses his own feeling (shared by many) that the laws of Nature are descriptive, not prescriptive or self-explanatory, and compares one form of censorship to another. 

          Nah. 

          Your attempts to paint O’Reilly as a racist are ludicrous but typical.  I’ve been watching O’Reilly for years, including in his interactions with blacks on the left (mostly: Mark Lamont Hill, Al Sharpton, Barack Obama, etc) and right.  He treats them the same way he treats everyone else. 

          Who had a different skin color in Abu Ghraib?  I’ve seen the pictures, everyone looked pretty white to me. 

          If you can’t find a few errors from a guy who has been on the air as long as O’Reilly, and has as big a mouth, that would be a miracle.  But no, IMHO, when taken in context, those don’t measure up to the scale of Bertrant Russell or PZ Myer’s respective fits of hysteria.

  • I’m cool man, maybe my bark is seemingly loud but it seems you can’t even have a discussion around here without some Christian infiltration and its spouting off its round one of tit for tat. To me that is a waste of negative energy and I don’t like being drawn into negativity.

    • Vic

      “Christian infiltration”

      While sometimes irritating, I think some kind of opposition is better than none; at least to avoid living in the feared “echo chamber”.

      There is, of course, a limit to usefulness if the oppostion tends to be rather “stout”, due to the discussion tending to get repetitive.

  • What is the Christian response to this except to say, well those aren’t ‘real’ Christians.

  • christthetao

    Andy: Yes, you did conflate.  (Though not in your first post.)  You said:

    “The first time I have seen a fucktard from Fox news comparing Obama to Hitler and democrats to the Nazis I was shocked, but they do it so often nowadays that these comparisons have lost all shock value (see for example: http://www.dailykos.com/story/… ).”

    The article cited is about Glenn Beck, not Fox News, which are distinct entities.  Beck is not part of the news program at Fox, he doesn’t work much at Fox anymore, and he’s not “from Fox” in the sense of becoming famous there.  He worked for CNN for about the same period of time, and prior.  Conflating Beck with Fox News, and saying “they” compare Hitler to the Democrats “so often,” is terribly sleezy.   

    I neither know nor care who Bolling is.  When did I defend him?  Fox has hundreds of people on its programs, it’s not like I sit in front of the TV all day. 

    I told you I watched the debate for myself, as I have been observing and commenting on American politics since long before there was a Fox News (my first published political opinion in 1976, at 15), offered my own eye-witness evaluation, and you accuse me of being a “parrot.” 

    Your comments are so over the top and malevolently dense, that I don’t see any point in continuing the conversation with you.  

    • First you apply the No True Scotsman fallacy to any Christian with whom you disagree and now you apply it to any FOX News host with whom you would not like to fully associate. 

      Amazing.

      • christthetao

        Jonathan: I’m getting tired of hearing about Scotsmen.  I know what you’re talking about, but it’s bull.  O’Reilly said something dumb the other day, though I suspect he has something in mind that he hasn’t explained clearly, behind the dumb comment.  It’s not the first dumb thing he’s said, but as one of your other posters said, he is not a dumb man.  Many of his interviews are brilliant. 

        What is a “tool,” by the way?  I’m not up on that jargon. 

        • urban dictionary:

          Tool
          Tool: (noun)
          1.) A guy with a hugely over-inflated ego, who in an attempt to get un-due attention for himself, will act like a jackass, because, in his deluded state, he will think it’s going to make him look cool, or make others want to be like him. The person may even insincerely apologize later on, but only in an attempt to get more attention, or to excuse his blatantly intentional, and unrepentantly tool-ish behavior.

          2.) Someone whose ego FAR exceeds his talent, intelligence, and likeability. But, of course, he is clueless regarding that fact. He erroneously thinks he is THE MAN!

          3.) Someone who others normally refer to as a prick, dick, or schmuck.

          4.) Someone who acts like a dick, because…well…he’s compensating

        • David you say O’Reilly does not represent FOX in the same way that all Christians with whom you disagree do not represent Christianity.
          You can simply apply that to all of both. No one CAN possibly represent FOX. In other words, anything which is ever spouted from FOX is somehow disconnected from FOX and is not representative.

          It’s not bull, read your posts.

          • christthetao

            Jonathan: I’m not following you, here.  I’m distinguishing between the news department and commentary shows.  Is that OK? 

            I don’t remember saying anything about dissident Christians in this thread, and can only guess what you had in mind elsewhere.  Did you see me call Joseph Smith a shmuck and a huckster, or something? 

          • FOX as a news station was called into doubt as being fair and objective. That surely includes such anchors. You also mentioned other names.

            Reference to other Christian denominations and the NTS fallacy was in reference to our last discussion on the other thread. I think it was here:
            http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tippling/2012/11/24/creationism-controversies-the-norm-among-potential-republican-2016-contenders/ 

    • Andy_Schueler

      The article cited is about Glenn Beck, not Fox News, which are distinct entities. 

      The same can be said about anyone who appears in any show hosted by Fox News because Fox News is a cable news channel (i.e. they are the host – of course they are not the same entity as any of their employees, but they are responsible for the content that they host and for the people that they provide a platform for). 

      He worked for CNN for about the same period of time, and prior.

      I know, and how many batshit insane conspiracy theories, Nazi comparisons and other forms of demagoguery did CNN tolerate ?

      Conflating Beck with Fox News, and saying “they” compare Hitler to the Democrats “so often,” is terribly sleezy.   

      No, what is sleazy is allowing demagogues like Beck to go crazy on your channel and deflect all criticism by saying “He´s just doing commentaries, our news anchors are not that crazy”. It´s a cable news channel and they are responsible for everything they host. 

      I neither know nor care who Bolling is.  When did I defend him?  

      When you said that you watch Fox News regularly and that their usage of the terms “socialism”, “communism” and “fascism” is “not that bad”. Bollings comment on Warren Buffett is just one example out of thousands of possibilities, there were at least 35 associations made by more than a dozen different Fox News employees from Megyn Kelly over Sean Hannity to Carl Cameron within just 9(!!) days before the 2008 election. If you are defending the usage of the term “socialism” by Fox News employees, you are defending these statements (and out yourself as an ignoramus).

      I told you I watched the debate for myself, as I have been observing and commenting on American politics since long before there was a Fox News (my first published political opinion in 1976, at 15), offered my own eye-witness evaluation, and you accuse me of being a “parrot.” 

      Yes, indeed I do accuse you of uncritically parroting the nonsense you are spoon-fed by Fox News. Because your political opinions are so over-the-top, so partisan, so biased, so hypocritical and so very similar to the Fox News party line that this is the most parsimonous explanation.

      • Well said Andy. I can’t understand people who defend FOX like David is. It is simply cognitive dissonance. Everyone in Europe understands what FOX news is. It is a laughing stock on the comedy circuit, and parodied, and the serious news channels equally show it for what it is. 

        I, for one, am a reader of the Independent in the UK. This is a paper free from political bias or interest. It has neutral owners, and you can tell that when you read it. If I DO read the Guardian, I am FULLY aware of its left wing bias.

        Any sensible commentator as I would hope you to be, David, would understand the bias of the organisations from which they receive their news. To claim it as fair and objective is simply wrong. Just take what it did with the investigative reporters working on Monsanto!!! Pulled the story because Monsanto threatened to pull their advertising. Fair and objective. Sure. Polluted milk going to school children is less important than advertising revenue.

        Long live the BBC. Something, on my travels, and in my work online, I have learnt to fricking cherish. I am happy to pay the licence fees.

        • christthetao

          Jonathan: Unlike American liberals, “everyone in Europe” does not mean the world to me, or anything at all, when it comes to opinions about Fox News.  What percentage of Europeans even watch it?  So why should anyone care what Europeans think about Fox, anymore than you should care what I think about, say, Swedish beer? 

          The BBC?  Well there’s an objective outfit for you. 

          I haven’t claimed that the commentators on Fox are fair, just that the news generally is — which it is, at least more than the “mainstream” media, which I grew up on. 

          • “The BBC?  Well there’s an objective outfit for you. ”

            You do realise that it is one of the most objective institutions in the world? It’s board of trustees and legal remit ensures this.

            Here’s a great example. It fucked up recently with a flagship programme pulling a piece on now outed (dead) paedophile Jimmy Saville. What did it do afterwards? Panorama, another flagship investigative news programme it produces brought out a hugely critical investigation of the bbc, In other words, the bbc investigated itself incredibly harshly and broadcast the programme to the world.

            What was particularly acute concerning this is that loads of commentators came out and said stuff like, “Yes, the BBC screwed up, but what other news organisation would have reacted like that. We could never imagine a corporation like FOX News reacting in such a way”.

            The BBC is awesome, even when it screws up. Its news is top notch, and is respected worldwide.

          • christthetao

            Jonathan: My impression of the BBC, like your impression of Fox (apparently), is mostly second-hand.  Conservatives often complain about the bias of the BBC, as for example here:

            http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1953/exclusive_bbc_left_wing_political_bias_illustrated_through_uk_political_funding_revelations

            But it’s probably better to defend claims about things I know first-hand, and let you make the google arguments. 

          • Nice, David. Of course, any decent analysis would tell you that those figures were derived primarily when Labour were in power. So of course time and thus money spent with the ruling party was higher. FAIL.

            There has got to be a reason why, as Andy points out, FOX has the reputation of being THE MOST BIASED News channel out there. You don’t get all the “I hate FOX News” facebook groups with the BBC etc.

      • christthetao

        Andy:  Yes, Fox is responsible for selecting its hosts, and you are responsible for your words.  You said “Fox News” and “they,” which then turned out to mean “Glenn Beck.”  It would be an element, and one would think fairly painless, act of honesty on your part to admit you overstated your point.  If you can’t bring yourself to take that step, then please don’t talk to me about dishonesty at Fox. 
        “Bollings comment on Warren Buffett is just one example out of thousands of possibilities, there were at least 35 associations made by more than a dozen different Fox News employees from Megyn Kelly over Sean Hannity to Carl Cameron within just 9(!!) days before the 2008 election. If you are defending the usage of the term “socialism” by Fox News employees, you are defending these statements (and out yourself as an ignoramus).”

        What are you claiming, at the moment?  That Megyn Kelly used the word “socialism?” That she called Warren Buffett a “socialist?”  Or Barack Obama?  Or what? 

        She’s one Fox(y) commentator whom I have seen a lot of, and have found her moderate, sharp, and considered in her commentary.  If you think otherwise, I have to think you either don’t watch, or are pretty prejudiced in your views. 
        “Yes, indeed I do accuse you of uncritically parroting the nonsense you are spoon-fed by Fox News. Because your political opinions are so over-the-top, so partisan, so biased, so hypocritical and so very similar to the Fox News party line that this is the most parsimonous explanation.”

        Nonsense.  I’m a mainstream conservative Republican.  On one on-line survey, I was actually rated LEFT of center!  My political views derive from the likes of Burke, Solzhenitsyn, Lao Zi, and Augustine, not Bill O’Reilly, entertaining as he is. 
        “But if you honestly believe that Obama won because his campaign outcompeted Romney´s in dishonesty and character assassination then you really should consider to broaden your horizon a little and get your news from more than one source.”

        I have never lived in a red state in my life: on line, I spend more time talking with atheists, liberals and anarchists than with Christians or conservatives.  I get the liberal POV.  But yes, Obama did win through demogoguery and the grossest, most shameless and consistent dishonesty I have seen in politics in my entire not-so-short-any-more life, IMO.  He’s an effective campaigner, but that seems to be all he ever does. 

        • Andy_Schueler

          Andy:  Yes, Fox is responsible for selecting its hosts, and you are responsible for your words.  You said “Fox News” and “they,” which then turned out to mean “Glenn Beck.”  It would be an elementary, and one would think fairly painless, act of honesty on your part to admit you overstated your point.  If you can’t bring yourself to take that step, then please don’t talk to me about dishonesty at Fox. 

          No, I did not overstate my point – Glenn Beck was just the worst of the bunch, BillO also has no clue what “fascism” means as we´ve seen in the video linked in the OP.
          For a nice compilation, see here:
          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/25/jon-stewart-rips-fox-news_1_n_813579.html 
          How many examples do you need ? 

          What are you claiming?  That Megyn Kelly used the word “socialism?” That she called Warren Buffett a “socialist?”  Or Barack Obama?  Or what?

          That she has no clue what the word “socialism” means like every other Fox News employee or simply lies about it:
          http://mediamatters.org/blog/2010/04/01/fox-news-megyn-kelly-drops-the-faccedilade/162595
          (again, the number of examples could be arbitrarily increased)

          My political views derive from the likes of Burke, De Toqueville, Adam Smith (indirectly), Solzhenitsyn, Lao Zi, and Augustine, not Bill O’Reilly, entertaining as he is.

          And you get your political “facts” from Fox News – which is the most biased network I´ve ever seen in a first world country. And that is the reason why you are such a partisan and see lies everywhere among the democrats, but not among republicans, because Fox News either doesn´t report those lies at all or tries to sell the lie as truth.

           I get the liberal POV.  But yes, Obama did win through demogoguery and the grossest, most shameless and consistent dishonesty I have seen in politics in my entire not-so-short-any-more life, IMO. 

          See, this is what I mean by you being so ridiculously partisan that it´s almost hard to believe. I don´t think Obama is an honest guy (although the most outrageous examples of his dishonesty are curiously never criticized by the american right) and I don´t think he´s a good politician – but his dishonesty doesn´t even come close to Mitt Romney, who managed to flip-flop on every single issue so many times that no one, not even fellow republicans, had any idea what the guy actually stands for. And then these ridiculus voter suppression efforts of the republican campaign (that, btw, is one of the most important reasons why your guy lost – the democrats were successful at mobilizing voters, and the republican voter suppression attempts were not as effective as they hoped – a high voter turnout benefits the democrats).

  • christthetao

    Andy: Your cite from Kelly proves my point, not yours.  Kelly is very careful NOT to agree with the claim that Obama is a “socialist,” but also obviously smarter than Colmes, describing that as a “short form” criticism of how Obama has increased government control and spending.  Still less does this citation support your original, over-the-top and rather smutty comments:

    “Using the words “fascist”, “socialist” or “Nazi” to label everyone that disagrees with you, no matter over how trivial a subject (and no matter if the disagreement has anything to do with what these words actually mean) means that these words loose all power and meaning.The first time I have seen a fucktard from Fox news comparing Obama to Hitler and democrats to the Nazis I was shocked, but they do it so often nowadays that these comparisons have lost all shock value (see for example: http://www.dailykos.com/story/… ).All it is, is a constant reminder that those fucktards at Fox news are as ignorant about history as they are about everything else.”

    So Kelly, obviously, does not call “everyone she disagrees with” a “Nazi” or even a “fascist.”  Nor does she even call anyone a “socialist” — and this is live talk, in which even smart people sometimes slip up, and you and that sleazy Media Matters are looking for one slip-up in YEARS of commentary.   

    And she doesn’t do it.  She deflects Colme’s raving against the good Tea Party folks, who want to save us from our crazed spending habits, but does so politely, carefully, and with great precision. (And of course, Colmes is also presumably a “fucktard at Fox News!”)

    No mention of “Nazis” or “fascists” here, at all. 

    And that’s what you think justifies your own frothing at the mouth against Fox! 

    Yet by your own claim (which looks now just like a  sleezy lie, frankly), “those fucktards at Fox News” compare Obama to Hitler, and the Democrats to Nazis, all the time! 

    And you refuse to back down even from the most patent falsehood among your claims, above. 

    Whatever his piccadilos, Jonathan is a gentleman,and he seems to know something about rational argument.  One hopes this will rub off on those who post in his forum.  Gnuistan has enough citizens like PZ Myers, already.

    • Andy_Schueler

      So Kelly, obviously, does not call “everyone she disagrees with” a “Nazi” or even a “fascist.”  Nor does she even call anyone a “socialist” —

      Ah, now we´re moving the goalposts to “if not everyone at Fox News doesn´t call someone a Nazi in every single sentence, you are wrong.”
      Nice try, your dishonesty has been noted (again)
      My original claim was, that they do this so often that it lost all shock value – and this is undeniably true:
      http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-24-2011/24-hour-nazi-party-people

       

      and this is live talk, in which even smart people sometimes slip up, and you and that sleazy Media Matters are looking for one slip-up in YEARS of commentary.   

      Make that 35 slip ups in 9 days, and this is only counting misusage of the term “socialism”.

      No mention of “Nazis” or “fascists” here, at all. 
      And that’s what you think justifies your own frothing at the mouth against Fox! 

      Yes, because I posted this link as an example of misusing the term “socialism” not as an example for misusing the term “fascism“, and I explicitly said so – can´t you read or are you just lying ? You´ve ignored all links that demonstrated misusage of the term “fascism” etc. like this one:
      http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-24-2011/24-hour-nazi-party-people
      Your dishonesty is staggering.

      And you refuse to back down even from the most patent falsehood among your claims, above. 

      Because they are not false, I´ve exhaustively demonstrated them and you try to save your ass by moving the goalposts and lying about what I said.

  • pboyfloyd

    “.. good Tea Party folks, who want to save us from our crazed spending habits..”, are like good Pro-Life folks who just want us to treat human beings(no matter how small) better.

    Or like some ‘good’ christthetao character who doesn’t just want more hits on his blog.

    • christthetao

      Floyd: Actually, lots more people have visited that page from atheist forums I’ve never heard of than from here.   Read it if you want, I couldn’t care less.  But I’ll make my longer arguments in print, or on my own sites. 

  • christthetao

    Of course there’s a reason.  It’s the same reason my Dad could never keep a John McCain campaign sign on his property in Seattle, without it getting stolen or vandalized.  As the PZ site I referrenced shows, there are a whole lot of fanatical left-wing secularists out there, and what they do best, is hate. 

    So of course they hate Fox News.  The Left had a monopoly of the news until Fox and Talk Radio came along, now they don’t.  Nothing angers people more than losing power.  And these people are good at hating, in the first place. 

    • Andy_Schueler

      So of course they hate Fox News.  The Left had a monopoly of the news until Fox and Talk Radio came along, now they don’t.

      You really believe that don´t you ? Here´s another cookie for you little parrot.

  •  [[As for Christianity being “bankrupt,” just read through my list of books showing how Christianity has changed the world for the better]]

    I am sure lists could be brought up of all the “bad” Christianity has done to rival anything good (Opposition to stem cell, pseudo-science pushed in courts, resistance to scientific theory, tax exemption of churches, bigotry towards homosexuals, faith-based initiatives consuming tax dollars, etc, etc.)

    But that to me is moot. It may be true that Christianity may bring better consolation to the bereaved or to the dying but at the cost of lying to people and advancing wishful thinking.  I won’t argue that your cosmic enforcer doesn’t offer some initiative for some folks, but my point is simply that the whole foundation of Christianity has yet to prove any of its claims.

    [[Since you yourself seem to admit the vacuity of the comments]]

    I did no such thing, only conceded that some may find importance in what you said. I don’t. Vicodin may alleviate pain but that doesn’t make it good to take. Christianity is a poison to rationality. It causes a lot of harm. It may do some good somewhere since evolution selected for people to generally be religious, thus it served some purpose, albeit, so did our wisdom teeth.

    [[for the reasons I gave, your cheap slap at me (“not worth having a discussion with”) is an understandable defensive mechanism, but not very convincing]]

    Not a defensive mechanism at all, I just didn’t want to get caught up in a needless discussion since you rattled right out of the gate with utter nonsense hoping to draw people in a tit for tat discussion. Utterly meaningless diatribe.

    [[But you are, of course, free to engage my comments, or not: next time, just don’t answer them]]

    I will only point out the obvious, how absurd most of what you say is and how it speaks of your unfalsifiable faith and invincible ignorance.

  • christthetao

    Jonathan: That’s not what the word “anchor” means.  Bill O’Reilly would generally not be considered an “anchor” in the news sense.  It is illegitimate to scoff at the fairness (I don’t claim objectivity for any mortal) of “Fox News,” without distinguishing between its news and its commentary shows.  That would seem to me to be an elementary act of honesty and of critical thinking.  Why am I wrong? 

    • Andy_Schueler

       It is illegitimate to scoff at the fairness (I don’t claim objectivity for any mortal) of “Fox News,” without distinguishing between its news and its commentary shows. 

      1. It is not illegitimate, people watch Fox News to get information about politics, it is a cable news network after all. 
      2. When did the “fair” news anchors of Fox News ever correct the lies of people like BillO and Beck ? When did they ever criticize their outrageous rethoric ? (and no, releasing a statement that Glenn Beck´s show is a commentary and intended as “entertainment, not news” does not count – all that is, is a dishonest attempt to give a demagogue a soap box without being criticized for it)
      3. The actual news anchors are not much better – they might not use Nazi comparisons as often as O´Rly does and Beck did, but they are just as biased and dishonest (the best example for that might be the Fox News reports about Sarah Palin´s lies regarding death panels – which was a national embarrassment, the entire world was laughing at the USA because a significant proportion of US-americans were gullible and stupid enough to believe this Bullshit).   

      • christthetao

        Andy: You call O’Reilly a “liar” because you have been programmed by leftwing propaganda to hate, and focus your rage on conventional objects of hatred: W, Sarah Palin, Fox News, “the One Percent.”  The Left has an endless variety of such vodoo dolls to stick pins into.  But you can’t expect everyone else to blindly accept premises that are accepted in blind faith in your own world. 

        I saw the same thing with communist propaganda, which I studied for my BA.  “Us Versus Them” is the most powerful tool of propaganda, and hatred one of the most popular emotions.  As George Orwell recognized (observing the communists), it is absolutely necessary to localize some stock caricature of an enemy on which to focus the mob’s rage.  For this reason, the American Left will never run out of villains: it manufactures them at a prodigious rate, no matter how improbable any level-headed person would view the caricature. 

        Fox, obviously, is a network that offers both news and commentary.  The fact that “news” is part of its official title, does not free you on the Left from conflating the two, or pretending that it is somehow illegitimate to show both on one network. 

        When I say O’Reilly’s show is commentary, not straight news, I am not, of course, accepting the standard left-wing slur that he’s a liar, etc. etc.  Nor if I deny this point, of course neither am I making the absurd claim that O’Reilly is infallible, and therefore can never be shown to have made an error. 

        No one in this thread has shown that O’Reilly has EVER compared Democrats to Nazis.  So you are still being terribly sleazy to imply that he does it often, and the news shows just do it less often. 

        I think I need to insist on direct quotes from you, from now on.  Are you now claiming that Obamacare does not involve panels that make decisions about the medical treatment of the sick?  Or that money is never a factor in those decisions?  Or that those decisions will, in fact, never lead to the death of the person decided against?  What exactly are you claiming is “Bullshit?”  And why do Gnus capitalize ‘bullshit,” but not “God?” 

        I find this last question perhaps the most intriguing, in a muck-raking way.

        • Andy_Schueler

          Andy: You call O’Reilly a “liar” because…

          …he is a liar.

          … you have been programmed by leftwing propaganda….

          since you are much more partisan than I am (I can´t stand the Republican and the Democrat party and I don´t engage in the kind of black-and-white thinking you do – “Fox News=fair and balanced”, “Mainstream Media = liberal propaganda” to name just two examples) this seems to be another case of projection:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

          ….to hate,…

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

          … and focus your rage on conventional objects of hatred: W, Sarah Palin

          I got quite mad at Obama and the democrats over many issues, expanding presidential power and outrageous abuse of the SSP would be two of them. Again, my thinking about politics is not as black-and-white as yours is. 

          I saw the same thing with communist propaganda, which I studied for my BA.  “Us Versus Them” is the most powerful tool of propaganda, and hatred one of the most popular emotions.  

          Ah, “us vs. them” – like “Conservative truth vs. liberal mainstream bias” or”god-fearing patriots vs. baby-killing, sodomy-enabling communists” ? 
          And “hatred” like this:
          http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RwdOaP3yxj8/TaBT5kROfPI/AAAAAAAAAMI/MGVD-1CmrVs/s1600/616px-Obama-Nazi_comparison_-_Tea_Party_protest.jpg

          Again, you are projecting your worst character flaws on people who don´t agree with you.

          No one in this thread has shown that O’Reilly has EVER compared Democrats to Nazis.  So you are still being terribly sleazy to imply that he does it often, and the news shows just do it less often. 

          If you would actually watch the clips we link to, you would have seen that O´Rly was in the Nazi-tourrette video. And he doesn´t apologize – he thinks that´s appropriate if the target of your Nazi comparisons owns a website where a commenter wrote something nasty about Nancy Reagan (for example).
          See:
          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/28/jon-stewart-hits-back-at-_n_815284.html (+ video link inside the article ).

          Are you now claiming that Obamacare does not involve panels that make decisions about the medical treatment of the sick? 

          I´m claiming that this quote from Sarah Palin´s facebook wall:
          “The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
          http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=113851103434
          Is an absolutely ridiculous lie, so ridiculous that the entire world laughed at the USA because ~30% of US-americans were gullible or stupid enough to believe it. If you are among those 30%, why don´t you quote the alleged section in the healthcare bill that is even remotely similar to the bold part in Sarah Palin´s quote ? Have fun.
          This lie earned the “lie of the year award” in 2009 – rightfully so in my opinion:
          http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/dec/18/politifact-lie-year-death-panels/

    • Oh, in case you were unsure, here’s Murdoch admitting it himself:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K2pLo8JV5Y

      Here is a fricking WEATHER MAN showing the political bias! Man, it’s terrible:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YvFCci9EaY

      I think a bunch of studies since 2004 have shown that people who watch FOX News know less about the world than people who don’t watch any news. Also, people who watch ‘fake’ news like Jon Stewart know more. 

      Go figure.

      Here is aforementioned Stewart listing FN direct quoted lies:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqA8oxY6aao&playnext=1&list=PL24E498AD27750E60&feature=results_video

      • Andy_Schueler

        Here is aforementioned Stewart listing FN direct quoted lies: 

        But those are only lies according to Politifact and the “mainstream media”, which obviously have a liberal bias, and how do I know that ? Because Politifact assigns more “pants on fire lies” to Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachmann and Newt Gingrich than to Obama! 
        http://conservativefactcheck.com/content/articles/50
        And this cannot, I repeat, cannot, possibly be explained by Romney, GIngrich and Bachmann simply lying more often than Obama does and putting less effort into preserving at least a tiny kernel of truth in the lie (to be classified as a “pants on fire lie” by Politifact, the lie has to be complete BS) compared to Obama.

  • [[Bill O’Reilly would generally not be considered an “anchor” in the news sense.]]

    Doesn’t make a bit of difference. He is representing the news station as such. For someone who claims to so objective why do you not see through this. I guess the answer lies in what you said in the other thread:

    “But I guess that’s human nature.”

    It is also known as confirmation bias.

  • christthetao

    I’ve hardly ever seen Barack Obama open his mouth, and God’s honest truth come out.

  • Well said Andy. And particularly spot on with regard to psychological projection. Not only do I see this regularly but with this gentleman you can “feel” it with every stroke at his keyboard with every word he articulates.

  • Pingback: Let Loose the Christmas Dogs of War! | Fleeing Nergal, Seeking Stars()

  • christthetao

    Jonathan: Sorry, I can’t follow Utube on this computer.  Were you really asking me to watch 50 U-tube clips? 

    I’m not sure what the point of your switching the attack from Fox to its viewers is supposed to be, anyway.  Do you think I’m uninformed about the world?  I read or speak five languages unrelated to my mother tongue, have lived in four other countries for longer than a year, have an MA from the prestigious Jackson School of International Studies, have followed a life-long fascination with world geography and demographics . . .

    And yes, I watch Bill O’Reilly most nights, and find him far saner, more reasonable, and more interesting than any of the liberal commentators.  Jon Stewart is amusing, but read one of his inane books, and you realize his cleverness is mostly facial expressions and sarcastic noises. 

    Dang, I miss Chesterton.

    • They are actual empirical examples of misinformation and bias shown by FOX. One very funny example is where the journalist is doing a part on the Obama election (1st one) and is in a cafe. He asks all the people who are going to vote for McCain to put their hands up, and not a single person does. He then asks who is going to vote for Obama and the entire cafe put their hands up. He then turns to the camera and the news desk and says the immortal words, something like “As you can see, the vote is split here, which is what it is all about”. To which even his own camera team laugh out loud at the brazen LIE which can be seen on camera by the entire audience.

      And so on. There are soooooooo many documented examples of FOX lies, bias and misinformation and Murdoch even admitted manipulating the news for an agenda.

      And still you deny it. You can speak as many languages as you like you still seem to be unable to interpret falsehood.

  • christthetao

    Andy:  You apparently have more time on your hands than I do.  I did follow your link to the Sarah Palin article you cited, and found a couple rather duplicitous and misleading sleights of hand that, had I the channels of propaganda the Left possesses, I’m sure I could convince millions of Democrats and “independents” that its author was a shameless liar.  The “death panels” comment appears little more debit to Palin’s honesty than the “I can see Russia from my house” comment that the Left made so much hay of, convincing 87% of the country that Palin actually said it:

     http://www.mhlearningsolutions.com/commonplace/index.php?q=node/5589

    So no, I long ago learned to “respect” the power of the Democrats’ lie machine, which echoed by the press, seems to convince even some Republicans of numerous “facts” that just aren’t true, especially about the objects of its hate propaganda.

    • Andy_Schueler

      Andy:  You apparently have more time on your hands than I do.  I did follow your link to the Sarah Palin article you cited, and found a couple rather duplicitous and misleading sleights of hand that, had I the channels of propaganda the Left possesses, I’m sure I could convince millions of Democrats and “independents” that its author was a shameless liar. 

      Ah, so you found “a couple rather duplicitous and misleading sleights of hand that”, but you keep those to yourself, because you don´t have the time to quote them, but they most certainly exist, why would you make that up, right ? I mean, it´s not like you are a dishonest wingnut who would just lie about something like this…

      The “death panels” comment appears little more debit to Palin’s honesty than the “I can see Russia from my house” comment that the Left made so much hay of, convincing 87% of the country that Palin actually said it:

      So you are suggesting that the death panel lie didn´t actually come from Sarah Palin, so where is your evidence that somebody hacked her Facebook account and posted this lie ?

      So no, I long ago learned to “respect” the power of the Democrats’ lie machine, which echoed by the press, seems to convince even some Republicans of numerous “facts” that just aren’t true, especially about the objects of its hate propaganda.

      You truly are a textbook example of psychological projection. 

  • christthetao

    You’re right, Andy.  I don’t have that much time for you, especially at the tale end of an extinct thread.  If you’d rather think of me as a “dishonest wingnut” who makes stuff up because he daren’t argue with the mighty Andrew Schueler directly, feel free to interpret my vague dismissal in those terms.  Of course I’m crushed if you think silly thoughts about me. 

    No, that’s not what I’m suggesting.  Think it through.  Take your time.  Get as much help as you need from any adults you happen upon in the process. 

    The thread’s all yours.

    • Andy_Schueler

      If you’d rather think of me as a “dishonest wingnut” who makes stuff up

      Since you never supported any of your outlandish claims with any evidence whatsoever, you simply making stuff up is indeed the most parsimonous explanation. If you don´t want to be accused of that, try providing some evidence for your claims the next time.

      because he daren’t argue with the mighty Andrew Schueler 

      It´s actually “Andreas”, or “Andy”, but what the hell. 

      No, that’s not what I’m suggesting.  Think it through.  Take your time.  Get as much help as you need from any adults you happen upon in the process. 

      You seem to think that passive-aggressive whining makes you look cool and sophisticated – it doesn´t. 
      Here´s a piece of advice from me: read the wiki article about psychological projection and think it through. 

  • Pingback: Will we ever have an inauguration without the bible? | No Cross No Crescent()

  • Pingback: The cross proclaimed “not religious symbol” by fiat…on Good Friday, but you can do something to make reality prevail | No Cross No Crescent()