Do you know anything at all about slavery, and the conditions under which slaves were forced to work under?
Yes, I do- I also know about Wal*Mart and the conditions they force their workers to work under as well.
Have you heard of the underground railroad, whereby slaves escaped to the North?
Yes- too bad when they got here their descendants ended up with $2.13/hr minimum wage, with tips.
Of forced feeding of slaves who tried to starve themselves to death in order to escape the daily horror of existence (habitual rape, beatings, mutilation as a deterrent)?
And this is different from locking minimum wage employees in a non-OSHA approved warehouse so that they can't get medical attention when crates fall on them exactly how?
Human dignity calls for more than mere survival.
And yet- when survival is denied, dignity is impossible as well. To a large extent, that's where the working poor in America are today- the new slave class, just under a different name because they get paid less than it costs to keep a slave.
I suggest that before you criticize, next time try to figure out what the other person is actually trying to say.
And thus- your arguments against mob rule are born out of Tyranny of the Minority- a small body protecting itself from direct democracy through regulation.
Untrue, many people want the teachers to say a prayer at the begining of the school day.
And what would be so bad about a teacher asking a divine power for the ability to teach?
Kids are free to close their eyes and pray whenever they want. atheism is not forced on anyone in the schools.
Publically, athiesm is- a kid praying aloud will get suspended at the least and sued at the worst.
I think your are confusing the free market with laisez faire, while there are many similarities they are not one in the same thing. I have always maintained a little regulation goes a long way.
They are one and the same- what you're for is a regulated market and likewise, in politics, Tyranny of the Minority.
And I would be one of those people, the act congress took was unconstitutional. They never specifically requested evidance, or international support (no in the measure itself).
But more damning against Bush- they never actually declared war against the Ba'athists. Thus the entire war becomes unconstitutional.
The market does, even in the "free market" there are rules (you cant legally price gouge). And in the "market" of us politics there are also rules, one of which is that a state gets a number of EV's and that number is constituionally fixed to its size.
Actually, in a truly free market, you CAN price gouge- but it's likely that your competition will take the opportunity to steal some of your market share. One cannot be truly for a free market, laisez faire, and then turn around and be for the regulation of politics.
Just so you know the point of a gun was refering to the Government forcing prayer in the schools *of any religion*. The governmnets power is in the end excersized by the forceful arrest and detainment of those who do not obey the law. If no sending your kid to school is considered a crime, and you cant afford to select your school and the local public school has mostly baptist teaching you are forcing (in the literal sense of the word) a religion on sombody elses kid.
Ah, but you see- the current prayer in schools people aren't against the first Amendment- they just want their own kids, and the teachers who take care of them, to freely be able to pray as their own religion demands. And request that the government follow it's own rules- in that Congress shall make no law preventing the free exercise of religion.
That is *NOT* the job of the government and no mob has the right to make it the job of the government. This nation was founded on the belief that we have inalienable rights, that are not protected by the government, they are protected *from* the government.
Too bad a small minority is forcing atheism on the schools then- by your own argument the current situation of *no* prayer in schools is forcing a religious belief on children.
Not in the way you are implying, I believe in the free market but I dont think you should be ablle to sell led tainted milk..
Then you don't truly believe in the free market ideal- which states that no law is necessary to prevent the selling of lead tainted milk- any such provider will go out of business rather quickly from a lack of customers, losing market share to those who sell a better quality of milk.
Really? wow can you point the the part of the authority they gave him in which they said you must meet these conditions? Can you point to how he did not meet those conditions.
Yes, but why should I? It's all on Kerry's website- in his rather detailed response to why he voted FOR authority.
Congress (the peoples represenatives) really messed up, I would never give a blanket 'authorization' you either say yes were going to war or no were not. This was not the examploe of the president making war, congress made it.
Congress gave a true blanket authorization for Afghanistan- but not one for Iraq. Some say that the one for Afghanistan was for any country that harbored terrorists (and it was) the problem is that Iraq NEVER HARBORED TERRORISTS. Saddam prefered to be far more open.
I have seen many senators and congressmen say this is what they meant but I have never seen it in writing *within* the actual autorization.
Some would say that the *resolution* to give the president this authority itself is even unconstitutional: http://www.fact-index.com/d/de/declaration_of_war. html, and that to fullfill the resolution, he had to go BACK to Congress and present his evidence, which never happened. Right-wing bloggers like to quote only the first paragraph of the resolution, thus cutting out the conditions, but one can't escape the fact that for the fifth time in the last century, Article 1 of the constitution was overlooked.
Not as long as public opinion *also* runs 75% against guns in schools- these things do even themselves out somewhat. Heck- most founder-worshipers are also worshipers of the Free Market God- and that's mob rule also. Why not let the all-knowing *market* decide? How can you support the market telling us what to manufacture, but not who is elected?
Really? and what exactly can the president do to which congress can not say no?
Apparently fight a war- since the Iraq war was supposed to happen only under certain circumstances that were not fullfilled.
Some would say that in fact there was no true authorization for War in Iraq since the President failed to:
1. Go back to the UN and get consensus before we acted.
2. Actually verify the rumors of an Iraqi Nuclear or Biological Warfare Program.
Umm he did not say that keeping it prevents the issue, what he says is that getting rid of it encourages the act.
Which would be a damned good thing at this point, I would think. Now that the neo-whatever feds have sold all of our sovereignity to the WTO for a few shiny Euros- we might as well tell them to go fuck themselves.
Against the minority trying to rule everybody else? You bet! I'm personally fine with school prayer- even if the teacher is a Satanist- because it at least teaches tolerance of other points of view. I'm fine with being against gay marriage from a cultural evolutionary standpoint- that way leads to a dead end that does not help the species survive. In both of these, the majority is much more wise than our current leadership.
Mob rule is just another FUD like the Tyranny of the Majority. In reality, there is no true majority anywhere in the United States. It would end up being a Coallition of the Plurality at best.
Actually, I'd say we've grown into the name- the federal republic has gained control over everything, just like the anti-federalists warned.
The more I read about Abraham Lincoln- the more I see even his anti-slavery movement as a fascist cheap-labor movement in reality. It's been pointed out before, by better men than I am, that the modern minimum wage actually allows the upper class to be even less responsible for the welfare of the working class than slavery was. At least a slave owner had to provide food, clothing, and shelter- and if he wanted to protect his investment, medical care as well.
That is, in fact, the primary reason for federalism (as opposed to nationalism) - it's supposed to keep more power at the state and local levels rather than centralizing it.
If so- federalism has been a miserable failure. Never at any other time in history has the central government had more power over our lives. And the central government is controlled by the same people who decide what franchises get to put stores in your local mall.
Which is interesting, because Tyranny of the Majority is a stupid concept to begin with invented by an upper class minority bent on abusing the majority.
Chances are- it's the tyranny of the plurality that would win in a true democracy- for no one minority has more than 50% representation.
None of us like Kerry, but we figure that you could put a block of wood into office and it would do a better (or at least a more honest) job than Dubya.
And a vote for Kerry- like a vote for Gore before him, is most certainly a vote for a block of wood.
By that theory- shouldn't everybody who listens to Air America Radio or the Daily Show be voting for Bush by now? FIRETRUCK! (ob ref- fake swift boat veterans advert on Air America Radio)
Just because something is public information here in the United States, where there are restrictions on the use of public information, doesn't mean I want that public information being sent to India- where there are no restrictions.
Because if they don't, they just might be faced with having to stay inside a lot over the next four years, regardless of who wins. Put all the third parties together, have the NRA and Libertarians arm them, and march on Washington, would be a good way to get this accomplished.
I'm one of those- I'd give Badnarik a 50-50 chance based on recent polls of gaining my vote (I don't want Bush to win, regardless, and I want Badnarik more than Kerry, but I'm in Oregon where things are so polarized that what color the state is depends on what city you polled).
GLICK:... is that in -- six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government.
I'd also point out his time frame is a bit off, I think. Wasn't it the Ford Administration that started the School of the Americas? And didn't we wait until *after* the Soviet Invasion to start training Mujahadeen? (Mujahadeen is a plural word to begin with I think, no need for the s at the end).
I might cede the point that everyone with an agenda has used 9/11 for that agenda in some ways. I'm just not sure what O'Reilly's agenda is, per se. If he's not a Republican or a Democrat, and he doesn't advocate one candidate or the other, does he have an agenda past his ratings?
Yes- I'd call O'Reilly the fairly typical Irish Traditionalist Catholic. He's conservative, but an independant. As a Traditionalist, he doesn't follow the Pope exactly- since by traditionalist rhetoric the current pope is fourth in a line of false Popes since a Mason was elected Pope back in 1958. Thus he'd be for the war- since that's the typical strong father approach, unlike the Pope, who is against it, for instance. He'd be strongly anti-Death Penalty, strongly anti-abortion, for this Pope is not the first to come out with the seemless garment of life concept (I think it was Pope Leo during the first Vatican Council, but I could be wrong).
GLICK:... is that in -- six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government.
Uh, the CIA was involved in recruiting the mujahadeen- but the Turaki government wasn't democratic, it was Soviet Socialist. Ok, I had the wrong time period- I thought it was meant during Gulf War I, not during the 1970s rebellion. Even Reader's Digest had the article about us funding, arming, and training the Mujahadeen.
You can argue that Bush's actions could have caused these men to be recruited, but to say that Bush himself (or the CIA, which he was head of) recruited them is a bit much.
Not really- given the time frame. Heck, we were even backing Saddam himself back then. It was a different era. CIA was still running the School of the Americas back then, in Miami, especially for this kind of training. The whole point was to defeat the Soviet threat- and the Soviets were backing the Turaki (not that that ever succeeded- three times Western governments have now intervened in Afghanistan- NEVER has any one government been able to get their puppets to control more than 10% of the country).
I'd say that I've noticed the definition of the word "coup" having a secondary, nonviolent meaning, only in the last 4 years or so (though that secondary nonviolent meaning could have equally applied to the 1996 American Presidential election).
Or is this news story too soon? I'd really be interested if the CPD has any response to this at all- and maybe we need to be addressing congress to make contracts between the major parties illegal to begin with.
Do you mean conservatives or Republicans? I'll grant you that O'Reilly leans conservative, but not Republican. We can argue this one if you want, but he's a registered independant and while he happens to agree with many Republicans *because* they're conservative, he has opposed the Bush administration on issues (in other words, he's not a talking head like Hannity).
I would say conservatives in general- Republicans are the worst of the lot, but every conservative I've ever seen, including the ones who are so liberal that they've wrapped around to being conservative, has used 9/11 to promote their personal agenda; even when it has absolutely no connection (like Pat Robertson on the 700 Club claiming that 9/11 happened because of sexual immorality).
I would argue you're not even technically correct (from Websters, "a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics"), being that there was no use of force in the election, but people on both sides have beat that horse to death.
Webster's is usually 5-10 years behind the common usage of words, just because of their immense publishing lead time, but I agree- people on both sides have beat the horse to death.
"Inspiration"? That's your argument? Are you agreeing with me that Bush *didn't* train them or are you saying he did? Glick said Bush trained them, I disagree and call Glick a liar. Address that point, don't prance around the issue by saying it's subtlely implied in a roundabout sort-of fashion.
Bush I's decision to leave troops in Saudi Arabia was a direct cause of those people being trained as terrorists- just as Kruschev's insistance on invading Afghanistan caused the training of an additional 100,000 (at least!) Moujahadeen 20 years earlier. It's possible to discuss that calmly- because the facts are not in dispute at all.
a personal insult saying that O'Reilly had used 9/11 to push his own agenda,
Isn't this exactly what the conservatives have done? If I were them, I'd be proud of it, not insulted by it.
referring to the Florida election as a "coup",
A coup doesn't have to be violent and you can't deny that they *never* had the recount that would prove it one way or the other.falsely accusing Bush Sr. of training 100,000 moujahadeen,
Well, if you consider that the main driving force behind al Qaida was the FIRST war with Iraq and it's aftermath (specifically leaving US troops in Saudi Arabia instead of giving the Saudis the ability to defend themselves from Hussein and then leaving) then yes, Bush I was indeed the inspiration for the training of 100,000 Moujahadeen. So I'm sorry, I don't see what O'Reilly's problem with any of these statements was, UNLESS HE WAS ACTUALLY LYING ABOUT ONE OR MORE OF THEM. Was he?
I get more real news from the first 15 minutes of the daily show than watching CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and FOX all day.
Agreed but it's 24 hours late- thus it's still worthwhile reading the newspaper as well (it takes time to make up all of those jokes). The closest ever will be Thursday Night after they've spent the entire time of the debate getting clips and making up jokes.
If "Occasionally parading out some freaks" means "any night we can't have an in-depth joke comentary on some public figure, usually at least twice a week", then I agree.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you know anything at all about slavery, and the conditions under which slaves were forced to work under?
Yes, I do- I also know about Wal*Mart and the conditions they force their workers to work under as well.
Have you heard of the underground railroad, whereby slaves escaped to the North?
Yes- too bad when they got here their descendants ended up with $2.13/hr minimum wage, with tips.
Of forced feeding of slaves who tried to starve themselves to death in order to escape the daily horror of existence (habitual rape, beatings, mutilation as a deterrent)?
And this is different from locking minimum wage employees in a non-OSHA approved warehouse so that they can't get medical attention when crates fall on them exactly how?
Human dignity calls for more than mere survival.
And yet- when survival is denied, dignity is impossible as well. To a large extent, that's where the working poor in America are today- the new slave class, just under a different name because they get paid less than it costs to keep a slave.
I suggest that before you criticize, next time try to figure out what the other person is actually trying to say.
Agreed I am for slight regulation in both areas.
And thus- your arguments against mob rule are born out of Tyranny of the Minority- a small body protecting itself from direct democracy through regulation.
Untrue, many people want the teachers to say a prayer at the begining of the school day.
And what would be so bad about a teacher asking a divine power for the ability to teach?
Kids are free to close their eyes and pray whenever they want. atheism is not forced on anyone in the schools.
Publically, athiesm is- a kid praying aloud will get suspended at the least and sued at the worst.
I think your are confusing the free market with laisez faire, while there are many similarities they are not one in the same thing. I have always maintained a little regulation goes a long way.
They are one and the same- what you're for is a regulated market and likewise, in politics, Tyranny of the Minority.
And I would be one of those people, the act congress took was unconstitutional. They never specifically requested evidance, or international support (no in the measure itself).
But more damning against Bush- they never actually declared war against the Ba'athists. Thus the entire war becomes unconstitutional.
The market does, even in the "free market" there are rules (you cant legally price gouge). And in the "market" of us politics there are also rules, one of which is that a state gets a number of EV's and that number is constituionally fixed to its size.
Actually, in a truly free market, you CAN price gouge- but it's likely that your competition will take the opportunity to steal some of your market share. One cannot be truly for a free market, laisez faire, and then turn around and be for the regulation of politics.
Just so you know the point of a gun was refering to the Government forcing prayer in the schools *of any religion*. The governmnets power is in the end excersized by the forceful arrest and detainment of those who do not obey the law. If no sending your kid to school is considered a crime, and you cant afford to select your school and the local public school has mostly baptist teaching you are forcing (in the literal sense of the word) a religion on sombody elses kid.
Ah, but you see- the current prayer in schools people aren't against the first Amendment- they just want their own kids, and the teachers who take care of them, to freely be able to pray as their own religion demands. And request that the government follow it's own rules- in that Congress shall make no law preventing the free exercise of religion.
That is *NOT* the job of the government and no mob has the right to make it the job of the government. This nation was founded on the belief that we have inalienable rights, that are not protected by the government, they are protected *from* the government.
Too bad a small minority is forcing atheism on the schools then- by your own argument the current situation of *no* prayer in schools is forcing a religious belief on children.
Not in the way you are implying, I believe in the free market but I dont think you should be ablle to sell led tainted milk..
Then you don't truly believe in the free market ideal- which states that no law is necessary to prevent the selling of lead tainted milk- any such provider will go out of business rather quickly from a lack of customers, losing market share to those who sell a better quality of milk.
Really? wow can you point the the part of the authority they gave him in which they said you must meet these conditions? Can you point to how he did not meet those conditions.
. html, and that to fullfill the resolution, he had to go BACK to Congress and present his evidence, which never happened. Right-wing bloggers like to quote only the first paragraph of the resolution, thus cutting out the conditions, but one can't escape the fact that for the fifth time in the last century, Article 1 of the constitution was overlooked.
Yes, but why should I? It's all on Kerry's website- in his rather detailed response to why he voted FOR authority.
Congress (the peoples represenatives) really messed up, I would never give a blanket 'authorization' you either say yes were going to war or no were not. This was not the examploe of the president making war, congress made it.
Congress gave a true blanket authorization for Afghanistan- but not one for Iraq. Some say that the one for Afghanistan was for any country that harbored terrorists (and it was) the problem is that Iraq NEVER HARBORED TERRORISTS. Saddam prefered to be far more open.
I have seen many senators and congressmen say this is what they meant but I have never seen it in writing *within* the actual autorization.
Some would say that the *resolution* to give the president this authority itself is even unconstitutional: http://www.fact-index.com/d/de/declaration_of_war
Yes at the point of a gun, gret tolerance
Not as long as public opinion *also* runs 75% against guns in schools- these things do even themselves out somewhat. Heck- most founder-worshipers are also worshipers of the Free Market God- and that's mob rule also. Why not let the all-knowing *market* decide? How can you support the market telling us what to manufacture, but not who is elected?
Really? and what exactly can the president do to which congress can not say no?
Apparently fight a war- since the Iraq war was supposed to happen only under certain circumstances that were not fullfilled.
Some would say that in fact there was no true authorization for War in Iraq since the President failed to:
1. Go back to the UN and get consensus before we acted.
2. Actually verify the rumors of an Iraqi Nuclear or Biological Warfare Program.
Umm he did not say that keeping it prevents the issue, what he says is that getting rid of it encourages the act.
Which would be a damned good thing at this point, I would think. Now that the neo-whatever feds have sold all of our sovereignity to the WTO for a few shiny Euros- we might as well tell them to go fuck themselves.
Against the minority trying to rule everybody else? You bet! I'm personally fine with school prayer- even if the teacher is a Satanist- because it at least teaches tolerance of other points of view. I'm fine with being against gay marriage from a cultural evolutionary standpoint- that way leads to a dead end that does not help the species survive. In both of these, the majority is much more wise than our current leadership.
Mob rule is just another FUD like the Tyranny of the Majority. In reality, there is no true majority anywhere in the United States. It would end up being a Coallition of the Plurality at best.
Actually, I'd say we've grown into the name- the federal republic has gained control over everything, just like the anti-federalists warned.
The more I read about Abraham Lincoln- the more I see even his anti-slavery movement as a fascist cheap-labor movement in reality. It's been pointed out before, by better men than I am, that the modern minimum wage actually allows the upper class to be even less responsible for the welfare of the working class than slavery was. At least a slave owner had to provide food, clothing, and shelter- and if he wanted to protect his investment, medical care as well.
That is, in fact, the primary reason for federalism (as opposed to nationalism) - it's supposed to keep more power at the state and local levels rather than centralizing it.
If so- federalism has been a miserable failure. Never at any other time in history has the central government had more power over our lives. And the central government is controlled by the same people who decide what franchises get to put stores in your local mall.
Which is interesting, because Tyranny of the Majority is a stupid concept to begin with invented by an upper class minority bent on abusing the majority.
Chances are- it's the tyranny of the plurality that would win in a true democracy- for no one minority has more than 50% representation.
You can't be an idiot and fly a jet fighter.
Ever hear of idiot savancy? It's common in autistics and recovered drug adicts.
None of us like Kerry, but we figure that you could put a block of wood into office and it would do a better (or at least a more honest) job than Dubya.
And a vote for Kerry- like a vote for Gore before him, is most certainly a vote for a block of wood.
By that theory- shouldn't everybody who listens to Air America Radio or the Daily Show be voting for Bush by now? FIRETRUCK! (ob ref- fake swift boat veterans advert on Air America Radio)
Just because something is public information here in the United States, where there are restrictions on the use of public information, doesn't mean I want that public information being sent to India- where there are no restrictions.
Because if they don't, they just might be faced with having to stay inside a lot over the next four years, regardless of who wins. Put all the third parties together, have the NRA and Libertarians arm them, and march on Washington, would be a good way to get this accomplished.
I'm one of those- I'd give Badnarik a 50-50 chance based on recent polls of gaining my vote (I don't want Bush to win, regardless, and I want Badnarik more than Kerry, but I'm in Oregon where things are so polarized that what color the state is depends on what city you polled).
GLICK: ... is that in -- six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government.
I'd also point out his time frame is a bit off, I think. Wasn't it the Ford Administration that started the School of the Americas? And didn't we wait until *after* the Soviet Invasion to start training Mujahadeen? (Mujahadeen is a plural word to begin with I think, no need for the s at the end).
I might cede the point that everyone with an agenda has used 9/11 for that agenda in some ways. I'm just not sure what O'Reilly's agenda is, per se. If he's not a Republican or a Democrat, and he doesn't advocate one candidate or the other, does he have an agenda past his ratings?
... is that in -- six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government.
Yes- I'd call O'Reilly the fairly typical Irish Traditionalist Catholic. He's conservative, but an independant. As a Traditionalist, he doesn't follow the Pope exactly- since by traditionalist rhetoric the current pope is fourth in a line of false Popes since a Mason was elected Pope back in 1958. Thus he'd be for the war- since that's the typical strong father approach, unlike the Pope, who is against it, for instance. He'd be strongly anti-Death Penalty, strongly anti-abortion, for this Pope is not the first to come out with the seemless garment of life concept (I think it was Pope Leo during the first Vatican Council, but I could be wrong).
GLICK:
Uh, the CIA was involved in recruiting the mujahadeen- but the Turaki government wasn't democratic, it was Soviet Socialist. Ok, I had the wrong time period- I thought it was meant during Gulf War I, not during the 1970s rebellion. Even Reader's Digest had the article about us funding, arming, and training the Mujahadeen.
You can argue that Bush's actions could have caused these men to be recruited, but to say that Bush himself (or the CIA, which he was head of) recruited them is a bit much.
Not really- given the time frame. Heck, we were even backing Saddam himself back then. It was a different era. CIA was still running the School of the Americas back then, in Miami, especially for this kind of training. The whole point was to defeat the Soviet threat- and the Soviets were backing the Turaki (not that that ever succeeded- three times Western governments have now intervened in Afghanistan- NEVER has any one government been able to get their puppets to control more than 10% of the country).
I'd say that I've noticed the definition of the word "coup" having a secondary, nonviolent meaning, only in the last 4 years or so (though that secondary nonviolent meaning could have equally applied to the 1996 American Presidential election).
Or is this news story too soon? I'd really be interested if the CPD has any response to this at all- and maybe we need to be addressing congress to make contracts between the major parties illegal to begin with.
Do you mean conservatives or Republicans? I'll grant you that O'Reilly leans conservative, but not Republican. We can argue this one if you want, but he's a registered independant and while he happens to agree with many Republicans *because* they're conservative, he has opposed the Bush administration on issues (in other words, he's not a talking head like Hannity).
I would say conservatives in general- Republicans are the worst of the lot, but every conservative I've ever seen, including the ones who are so liberal that they've wrapped around to being conservative, has used 9/11 to promote their personal agenda; even when it has absolutely no connection (like Pat Robertson on the 700 Club claiming that 9/11 happened because of sexual immorality).
I would argue you're not even technically correct (from Websters, "a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics"), being that there was no use of force in the election, but people on both sides have beat that horse to death.
Webster's is usually 5-10 years behind the common usage of words, just because of their immense publishing lead time, but I agree- people on both sides have beat the horse to death.
"Inspiration"? That's your argument? Are you agreeing with me that Bush *didn't* train them or are you saying he did? Glick said Bush trained them, I disagree and call Glick a liar. Address that point, don't prance around the issue by saying it's subtlely implied in a roundabout sort-of fashion.
Bush I's decision to leave troops in Saudi Arabia was a direct cause of those people being trained as terrorists- just as Kruschev's insistance on invading Afghanistan caused the training of an additional 100,000 (at least!) Moujahadeen 20 years earlier. It's possible to discuss that calmly- because the facts are not in dispute at all.
he cut Glick off for multiple reasons;
Let's take a look at these reasons one at a time:
a personal insult saying that O'Reilly had used 9/11 to push his own agenda,
Isn't this exactly what the conservatives have done? If I were them, I'd be proud of it, not insulted by it.
referring to the Florida election as a "coup",
A coup doesn't have to be violent and you can't deny that they *never* had the recount that would prove it one way or the other.falsely accusing Bush Sr. of training 100,000 moujahadeen,
Well, if you consider that the main driving force behind al Qaida was the FIRST war with Iraq and it's aftermath (specifically leaving US troops in Saudi Arabia instead of giving the Saudis the ability to defend themselves from Hussein and then leaving) then yes, Bush I was indeed the inspiration for the training of 100,000 Moujahadeen. So I'm sorry, I don't see what O'Reilly's problem with any of these statements was, UNLESS HE WAS ACTUALLY LYING ABOUT ONE OR MORE OF THEM. Was he?
I get more real news from the first 15 minutes of the daily show than watching CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and FOX all day.
Agreed but it's 24 hours late- thus it's still worthwhile reading the newspaper as well (it takes time to make up all of those jokes). The closest ever will be Thursday Night after they've spent the entire time of the debate getting clips and making up jokes.
If "Occasionally parading out some freaks" means "any night we can't have an in-depth joke comentary on some public figure, usually at least twice a week", then I agree.