Lexis Nexis Demonstrates How Full Of Crap The Left Is About O'Reilly

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by niftydrifty
[Hi everybody. This is my first post ever here]

Welcome to DP.

I do believe I enjoyed your train of thought with aquapub.

 

[aquapub]

no you just have many more crooks and liars per capita, and we have more techies with webspace per capita.

Cheney called Iraq the "geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

This might make sense if it weren't for the fact that the bs you people constantly plagiarize from those sites didn't CONSTANTLY get debunked in all of two seconds. What a joke.

And Bill Clinton took an oath to defend this country. At least Iraq WAS connected to Al Queda. Bill Clinton didn't even come close to his statement.

 

[aquapub]

I think it's great that you are able to use Lexis Nexis, however, you could use a logic course...what is the "the left"?

Some of us don't have to take philosophy classes to grasp what it means to be left of center. :lol:

 

[hipsterdufus]

Some of us don't have to take philosophy classes to grasp what it means to be left of center. :lol:

FYI- Logic isn't the same as philosophy.

 

[aquapub]

Last time I looked, Fox's ratings were nearly 10x as high as all the other news networks!

Ah, when you brush up on your logic, you will learn that this is an appeal to popularity. And quite irrational. Shut up.

:liar2

Actually, here's the rest of my post you are mischaracterizing:

"Last time I looked, Fox's ratings were nearly 10x as high as all the other news networks! Apparently Middle America likes seeing Democrats debate Republicans on Fox rather than Joe Liebermen (D) debating Howard Dean (D), moderated by Clinton staffers like Stephanopolous (D) on CNN, NBC, etc."

My point wasn't that Fox is more popular, therefore it is better. That would be an ad populum fallacy-thanks for assuming I need to learn what an appeal to popularity is. :roll:

The point was that Middle America is conservative.

In your very first post, you've managed to dishonestly misrepresent someone's statement, make untrue assumptions, hurl bogus personal attacks, and conduct yourself like a novice...all in your very first post. Usually it takes liberals at least a few posts to discredit themselves. :bravo:

 

[aquapub]

Just who are making these accusations about O'Reilly? Whom has called "shut up" O'Reilly's trademark? Is the WHOLE left guilty for these transgressions, in your opinion? Guilt by [your irrational] association, eh?

If you'd like to make a point that you can truly 'prove'? Why not find something that someone said about O'Reilly? Tell us why it isn't true. Instead you make this great big irrational generalization engineered to discredit the entire "left." It's very weak.

Apparently, you missed my intro, where I gave 3 examples of people making this bogus accusation:

CNN:

"Mr. Dobbs's weave of sanctimony and indignation flattens guests with opposing viewpoints -- he hasn't ventured to adopt Bill O'Reilly's trademark ''shut up'' yet."

Chicago Sun Times:

"Or, as you so eloquently put it to guests on your show who get the better of you, shut up."

NPR:

"...analyzes O'Reilly's creative use of the command "shut up" on his TV show...".

And I did prove that the accusations were false using Lexis Nexis.

And I expect you to not need it explained to you that when I say "the left" I don't mean every single person left of center. :roll:

My claims can be backed up. YOURS are what's weak. :mrgreen:

 

[aquapub]

Secondly, you should know that Lexis Nexis transcripts of Fox News programs are provided by ... Fox News. Not all of the programs make it to LN every single day. And sometimes, the transcript, um, varies from what was actually said on the air. Who knows? It could be intentional, or maybe not. You should know that. Who knows how many "shut ups" didn't actually make it to LN.

To call something someone's trademark, it needs to be done by them at least 51% of the time.

I'm sure you're right. There was a conspiracy to turn in doctored transcripts with the word shut up removed from over 1,300 episodes of O'Reilly-which is the amount needed to reach 51%.

What a substantive criticism. :lol:

 

[aquapub]

Actually, you didn't. It's kinda funny how you found 200-something examples of O'Reilly saying "shut up." That's a good many "shut ups!" I'd say, if anything, you've proven it oughta be his motto!

This might be logical if we WEREN'T here to discuss the lie that O'Reilly's trademark is to TELL PEOPLE TO SHUT UP.

Way to think it through, Sparky. :doh

 

[aquapub]

You're funny, aquapub. I mean, a favorite tactic of "the Right" (if I may venture into your logical system) is to invoke Clinton. To compare with Clinton. What would you say is Clinton's trademark. Was it ... "I never had sexual relations with that woman"? And how many times did he say it? Um... once? But it was noteworthy because it was pretty bad, right? Because it was a big fat lie, right?

Comparing Clinton to other leaders is often valid. That isn't a tactic. It's a solid way (usually) to highlight liberal hypocrisy.

And I would call his trademark crime. I wanted to say rape or sexual harrassment, but crime will do.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by aquapub
Some of us don't have to take philosophy classes to grasp what it means to be left of center.

Hells Bells pubby, do you have any idea who your quoting?

 

[niftydrifty]

This might be logical if we WEREN'T here to discuss the lie that O'Reilly's trademark is to TELL PEOPLE TO SHUT UP.

Way to think it through, Sparky.

What a mess of replies you've made, aquapub.

This matter is really quite simple, actually. Seriously. A simple question, for you, aquapub. Yes or no. Has "shut up" ever been uttered by O'Reilly's mouth? Has it ever been directed at a guest? There's your trademark, right there. But you'll obviously never see it. You call it a lie, when someone talks about something that happens.

Think it through, indeed. :doh

Furthermore, three people does not equal "the left." Why say "the left" when you're talking about 3 people? You seemed to miss that point.

I've led you to water. Will you drink?

 

[aquapub]

What a mess of replies you've made, aquapub.

This matter is really quite simple, actually. Seriously. A simple question, for you, aquapub. Yes or no. Has "shut up" ever been uttered by O'Reilly's mouth? Has it ever been directed at a guest? There's your trademark, right there. But you'll obviously never see it. You call it a lie, when someone talks about something that happens.

Think it through, indeed. :doh

Furthermore, three people does not equal "the left." Why say "the left" when you're talking about 3 people? You seemed to miss that point.

I've led you to water. Will you drink?

The claim: O'Reilly's trademark is to tell people to shut up.
The evidence: shows that he, in fact, does this less than 1% of the time.

Not one word of this self-absorbed drivel of yours addresses this.

Remove head from rectum, then debate. :lol:

 

[niftydrifty]

Wow, aquapub, you ignored my question.

What is a debate? I think you need to think about this. Furthermore, what is a civil debate? You obviously can't make a rational point. So slander, you shall. I am amused.

The claim: O'Reilly's trademark is to tell people to shut up.

Whoa, doggies!! Remember, aquapub, we are debating YOUR claims. I really can't believe that you typed this. You see, here is what a debate is: You explain your position. And you support your position with evidence. Others explain their position, and they support their positions with evidence. Others will also explain why your positions are illogical. This is what debate is, aquapub. It's telling that you think we're debating something that you didn't say. No, we're talking about why you're wrong wrong wrong, aquapub! You made a claim that "the left" lies about O'Reilly. I and others have schooled you on this ridiculous claim. You claim that "shut up" isn't O'Reilly's because he seldom says it [to another person]. I've already explained why this is an absurd claim, as well.

But since you've clearly misunderstood what this debate, and indeed, any debate, is all about, you of course have missed it.

The evidence: shows that he, in fact, does this less than 1% of the time.

What is a trademark? How often does someone need to do something before they become known for it? You definitely need to think about this, too. If something someone does or something someone says becomes their "trademark," it has a lot more to do with how much others talk about it, than it has to do with how often that someone says or does it, aquapub. Duh! How else will they become known for it?!

How many times did CBS News run segments which use phony memos about Bush's ANG non-service?

How many times did Howard Dean scream?

Did Clinton plook an intern less than 1% of the time?

How many times did Clinton talk about the definition of "is"?

Does Nagin talk about chocolate less than 1% of the time?

Did OJ Simpson spend less than 1% of his time allegedly killing his wife? Or speeding away from cops?

How many times did GHWB say "read my lips"?


... Etc etc etc etc etc etc.

How many people are known for (awful) things that they said or did once, aquapub? Hundreds? Thousands? Do you reserve your double standard only for the "the left?" Are you going to dodge these questions too? Of course you will, aquapub. It's the only way you'll be able to make one of your trademark nonsensical posts. Unfortunately, in your case, it seems to be 100% of the time.

 

[aquapub]

Wow, aquapub, you ignored my question.

What is a debate? I think you need to think about this. Furthermore, what is a civil debate? You obviously can't make a rational point. So slander, you shall. I am amused.

Um...Ok. I will get us back on topic...again.

The claim: O'Reilly's trademark is to tell people to shut up.
The evidence: shows that he, in fact, does this less than 1% of the time.

Hint: This is the part where you stop meandering around aimlessly with self-absorbed blathering about the meaning of debate and actually challenge the assertion I've made.

Focus, Sparky. :lol:

 

[aquapub]

Whoa, doggies!! Remember, aquapub, we are debating YOUR claims.

This is my assertion:

The claim: O'Reilly's trademark is to tell people to shut up.
The evidence: shows that he, in fact, does this less than 1% of the time.

Hint: This is the part where you stop meandering around aimlessly with self-absorbed blathering about the meaning of debate and actually challenge the assertion I've made.

Focus, Sparky. :lol:

 

[hipsterdufus]

To call something someone's trademark, it needs to be done by them at least 51% of the time.

Huh? Says who? The almighty Aquapub?

Anyway, using that line of logic, we could easily conclude that Bill O'Reilly's trademarks are lying and bullying guests he doesn't agree with.

 

[aquapub]

You see, here is what a debate is: You explain your position. And you support your position with evidence. Others explain their position, and they support their positions with evidence. Others will also explain why your positions are illogical. This is what debate is, aquapub. It's telling that you think we're debating something that you didn't say. No, we're talking about why you're wrong wrong wrong, aquapub!

Um...Ok. I will get us back on topic...again.

The claim: O'Reilly's trademark is to tell people to shut up.
The evidence: shows that he, in fact, does this less than 1% of the time.

Hint: This is the part where you stop meandering around aimlessly with self-absorbed blathering about the meaning of debate and actually challenge the assertion I've made.

Focus, Sparky.


(I can post this as many times as it takes to get you to actually challenge the claim being made.)

 

[aquapub]

Huh? Says who? The almighty Aquapub?

Anyway, using that line of logic, we could easily conclude that Bill O'Reilly's trademarks are lying and bullying guests he doesn't agree with.

Conspicuously missing...Proof of lying.

Bullying? Like interrupting? Like, every other freaking political talk show host on the planet? Like Chris Matthews?

Weak. :roll:

 

[aquapub]

To call something someone's trademark, it needs to be done by them at least 51% of the time.

Huh? Says who? The almighty Aquapub?

Of course, how silly of me. Why would I expect something that's called a trademark to actually happen the majority of the time? :lol:

 

[aquapub]

You made a claim that "the left" lies about O'Reilly. I and others have schooled you on this ridiculous claim.

Congratulations! You made a relevant argument that can go somewhere.

As for your point...What you ACTUALLY did was act like I have to systematically prove that every major U.S. media source endorsed this notion officially, in the form of hundreds of links to transcripts. :roll:

I'm not writing a freaking term paper here. I made the assertion that the Left is framing this as O'Reilly's trademark, then posted 3 examples of liberals doing this. Which is sufficient.

 

[aquapub]

You claim that "shut up" isn't O'Reilly's because he seldom says it [to another person]. I've already explained why this is an absurd claim, as well.

Um...ok. Well, to the rest of the world, doing something only rarely kind of disqualifies it as your "trademark." Duh. :lol:

 

[aquapub]

What is a trademark? How often does someone need to do something before they become known for it? You definitely need to think about this, too. If something someone does or something someone says becomes their "trademark," it has a lot more to do with how much others talk about it, than it has to do with how often that someone says or does it, aquapub. Duh!

:bs

The hell it does. If I use a racial slur once and it gets talked about a million times in the media, that doesn't make it MY TRADEMARK, that makes it THE MEDIA'S FIXATION.

 

[aquapub]

How many times did Howard Dean scream?

Did Clinton plook an intern less than 1% of the time?

How many times did Clinton talk about the definition of "is"?

Does Nagin talk about chocolate less than 1% of the time?

Did OJ Simpson spend less than 1% of his time allegedly killing his wife? Or speeding away from cops?

:bs

Calling something someone's "trademark" invariably indicates that they do it frequently. No one would say Howard Dean's trademark is that he screams. They would say it's what he's remembered most for.

You cannot stretch "trademark" to mean something it isn't. These people were clearly portraying O'Reilly as routinely doing it. This phony smokescreen is intellectually dishonest and won't fly.

Now. If you can just keep debating without all the insecure, I have a small penis, ego crap, we'll be having an adult debate.:2wave:

 

[::Major_Baker::]

aquapub. surely in all this important research you have been partaking in, you have found exactly how many times O'reilly has told a guest to shut up, right?

How many times?



No take that number, and try to find another journalist that has told their guests to shut up the same number of times, or more.

Find it.

Until then, quit humping O'reilly's leg. He tells guests to shut up. Other mainstream 'journalists' don't do that.

Therefore, it is his trademark.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Conspicuously missing...Proof of lying.

Bullying? Like interrupting? Like, every other freaking political talk show host on the planet? Like Chris Matthews?

Weak. :roll:

Here's some recent O'Reilly propaganda:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/348545-post301.html