O'Reilly: "We Didn't Invade Iraq"

reply to post by centurion1211


Lying can be illegal.

Get it through your head. No, telling your mom that you went to the mall, when you were really with your girlfriend is not going to get you in trouble (at least not much - except maybe with her).

However, if someone lies and it causes damage to another, that person can be taken to court and sued.

Our legal system disagrees with you, sir.

*Edit:

Who gets to "watch"? Anyone who can blow a whistle. Anyone who can catch a lie.

I haven't exactly developed a perfect legal procedure, but I am sure something could be worked out. Whether it went through the court system, or if a fine was levied for it.

Obviously there would have to be checks and balances...

[edit on 2-5-2008 by Sublime620]

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by _Del_

 

That doesn't work. People believe what they hear, Del.

That's the problem. It wouldn't matter the MSM lied and no one heard it or believed it, but they do. People listen to these lies and base decisions off of them.

So, where did you get the information you used to form your opinions? What if they lied to you and you believed them anyway? How would you know? Shock to you, but I'm sure many reading these threads think that's exactly what has happened.

reply to post by burdman30ott6

My friend, as a native of a confederate state (territory at the time), I wish someone had driven Lincoln back and freed us back then.

Well, this may come as a surprise to you coming from a yankee that traces his roots back to the 1600's here, but I agree with you. And in the end, I think even Lincoln was duped. When he figured it out, they shot him for all his efforts.

But this still does not mean that the US had any right to meddle in the affairs of Kuwait and Iraq, anymore than I would expect British support of the Confederacy to wind up turning America back into an imperial colony all over again.

reply to post by centurion1211


Eclectic. It's a good word.

That's what I am. I use many different sources. I read online, I watch Fox News (actually more than I watch CNN). I read blogs, I read posts online, and I read books.

What if we pulled out of the Middle East based on a lies purported by CNN and other "liberal media", and then a terrorist attack happened on US soil?

Would still think that CNN should be able to operate unchecked?

Originally posted by Sublime620
That doesn't work. People believe what they hear, Del.

That's the problem. It wouldn't matter the MSM lied and no one heard it or believed it, but they do. People listen to these lies and base decisions off of them.

Great, so now the government wants to shut down the 911 conspiracy sites/news as lies. Are you still all for this? Do you see the parallel?

Any other pet beliefs or conspiracies you hold true that might be perceived as anti government and untruthful? Kiss them good bye.

That's what you're proposing.

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by centurion1211

 

I haven't exactly developed a perfect legal procedure, but I am sure something could be worked out. Whether it went through the court system, or if a fine was levied for it.

Obviously there would have to be checks and balances...

[edit on 2-5-2008 by Sublime620]

And how exactly is that working out so far considering all the news stories of people unfairly imprisoned and even executed for crimes they didn't commit?

You haven't figured it out because - as I said - no one can. And you want "checks and balances" - like the same ones that you feel aren't working now?

My point exactly, and thanks for (helping) prove it.

The defense rests.

[edit on 5/2/2008 by centurion1211]

reply to post by _Del_


Do you think a 9/11 site should remain up if it contains lies? I sure don't.

There is a difference between a dissenting view and a lie.

For instance, any 9/11 site that still says that there were no planes, and no one died that day.

That is a lie that can be proven as such, do you not agree?



More importantly, those aren't MSM sites, are they? Most of those are privately owned, not public domains.

They would not fall under supervision.

reply to post by centurion1211

And that's what this is really all about isn't it? You hate Bill O'Rielly because his comments resonate with far more people than anyone you favor could ever dream of reaching. Admit it.

I'll admit that. The thing I hate most about Bill O'Reilly is the fact that there is no effective counterbalance to his propoganda and rhetoric. The MSM took a hard dive to the right when Donahue was fired for questioning the war before it all went down. Now we see that he was actually right, but did he ever get his job back? Or did they let anyone else come out to make an effective counterbalance? No. Instead we are left with a right-leaning nation based on lies and a media that is in the pocket of fascism.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Well, this may come as a surprise to you coming from a yankee that traces his roots back to the 1600's here, but I agree with you. And in the end, I think even Lincoln was duped. When he figured it out, they shot him for all his efforts.

But this still does not mean that the US had any right to meddle in the affairs of Kuwait and Iraq, anymore than I would expect British support of the Confederacy to wind up turning America back into an imperial colony all over again.

I highly recommend reading "The Real Lincoln"
www.amazon.com...

It's an amazing record of the liberties destroyed and suspended under Lincoln's administration.

I think ideally, British support would have ended at southern independence. I think ideally that was the goal in Iraq. I don't think imperialism was the goal, unless you think Kuwait is a US colony as opposed to ally now...

reply to post by Sublime620


Listen, if you don't see where this would be abused, you're kidding yourself or are as dim as the people you're trying to protect from the media.

reply to post by jackinthebox


I couldn't agree with you more about the point on media centralization or less on the point about Donahue. If Donahue had ratings, he'd be on the air. It's a business man -- dollars and cents are all they care about.

reply to post by centurion1211


Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you wanted me to type up a legal document.

Do you even know what you are arguing anymore? You've obviously given up on the whole "unconstitutional" thing, since you now know that was a ridiculous statement.

I've provided avenues to begin looking at. I cannot provide the exact provisions for how it would be executed, nor should I be expected to. I don't have the time nor access to the kind of information that would be necessary.

Do you want to discuss this or just squabble over it? Let's first quit pretending like you are some sort of protector the of the constitution.

Second, let's quit pretending like you have any basis to understand law. You quote the 1st amendment like a 7th grader does - with no real understanding of it.

Third, let's start actually discussing how this could be implemented and real problems in implementing it. Such as, what agencies would have oversight? Would it be criminal or just involve fines? To what extent would the legal system get involved?

Originally posted by centurion1211
And how exactly is that working out so far considering all the news stories of people unfairly imprisoned and even executed for crimes they didn't commit?

I don't know what you are implying here. Are you saying that our legal system can't be trusted anymore?

If so, that's more of a problem then the MSM, and that should be brought up in another thread.

Hmm, I'll try to explain it, I guess.

Under the new FCC "no lies on the news policy" we would have never heard of Monica Lewinsky because Bill Clinton denied that he ever had sex with that woman (which was of course a lie). Ken Starr would be under heavy fines for starting such a lie and wasting so many tax dollars to fabricate such a lie.

Now do you see how such a system could be manipulated?

On the otherhand, I agree that news networks should not engage in entertainment styles as news. It is okay to promote shows on a separate channel by CNN et al for Corbert, Hannity, Savage, Limbaugh, Stewart and the rest.

By airing such OP/ED entrtainment on a news channel in a newscast format (formal or informal) boarders on the confusion that the old War of the Worlds broadcast and the problems that it caused. Many educated and reasonably intelligent people thought that was real too.

A simple separation of news from entertainment would be a better fix without granting governmental editing powers to anything that counters the administraition agenda or image.

reply to post by _Del_


Where would it be abused? Provide an example at least before you call me dim...

I feel like I'm the only one who is basing things off of reality, while I argue with people who are still referencing their 7th grade teacher's opinion on the constitution.

reply to post by Ahabstar


See that's simply ignoring the obvious to express the agenda you want to agree with.

None of that would have happened. Bill Clinton lied, not the MSM, and that truth came out.

Before the truth came out, it was all speculation... not lies. There is a difference between speculation and lies.

Lies are very finite. I don't understand why people are having trouble understanding this.

Shill O'lielly it's what's known as "The last word guy." On several occasions, especially when in a heated debate with someone, in closing he'll say something like "I'm right and you're wrong. Next on Fox..." He reminds me of a schoolyard bully. If not in agreeance (agreeance is an original dubbya word by the way) with a guest on his dopey show he will use such tactics as yelling while pointing his finger, talking over the person, cutting their mic, and often pathetic attempts at character assassination.
We must remember this is the guy who drunk dialed a female associate and told her what he would like to do to her in the shower with a loofah, which he called "the falafel thing." He's also paranoid, remember the time on his radio show when someone mentioned Keith Olbermann and he sicced Fox security on the person. I don't think he even takes himself serious anymore.

reply to post by _Del_


Thanks for the book recommendation. There are things from that time period that I am still trying to hash out, but I have become quite skeptical of the glory attached to the Lincoln administation to say the least.

I think ideally that was the goal in Iraq. I don't think imperialism was the goal, unless you think Kuwait is a US colony as opposed to ally now...

I think it was indeed the goal. We set the trap. Why else would we give Saddam the green light and then attack him for what we had originally approved of? Why didn't we see pressure on Iraq and UN sanctions before he invaded?

And I do see Kuwait as a colony. It always has been really. Not of the United States politically, but of the west in general economically.

I think ideally, British support would have ended at southern independence.

What would lead you to think that? Why would the British be involved in the first place if they didn't have their eye on weaseling their way back onto the continent. Truthfully speaking, I think this actually is what happened. They played both sides of the fence. That's why they never did actually bother to help the Confederates, though they made overtures of friendship.

But the real goal of the British was to infiltrate the US economy. When you start digging, you start to see all the missing pages from the history books when you start talking about nationalized banking, currency, and various other economic issues of the day. There's a bug stink-bomb in there somewhere that I am still trying to find, because it stinks now worse than ever all these years later.

O'Reilly spent the Clinton years hounding them for trivia like Monica and whitewater.

If he would have spent one-tenth of that air time going after Al-Qaeda rather than
spouting off his jealousy about Bill Clinton getting some while he tends to his porn
addiction then 9-11 wouldn't have happened.

Then when we're about to invade Iraq, O''Reilly commits treason and pukes up the
lies that Cheney, Rumsfeld, and that whole scumbag of war profiteers deceived America with.

Basically O'Reilly is just another war profiteer who has helped destroy America
for his own selfish greed. O'Reilly like the Bush henchmen should be sent to jail where
they can clean the toilets of the other criminals.

O'Reilly will be re-incarnated as the bacteria that lines the anus of a dung beetle.

Originally posted by jackinthebox

I think it was indeed the goal. We set the trap. Why else would we give Saddam the green light and then attack him for what we had originally approved of? Why didn't we see pressure on Iraq and UN sanctions before he invaded?

And I do see Kuwait as a colony. It always has been really. Not of the United States politically, but of the west in general economically.

The Emir would beg to differ I see your point, but disagree with the analysis. As I recall April Glaspie was sidelined after the gaffe. I don't see evidence of a conspiracy, though I can't rule it out.

What would lead you to think that? Why would the British be involved in the first place if they didn't have their eye on weaseling their way back onto the continent. Truthfully speaking, I think this actually is what happened. They played both sides of the fence. That's why they never did actually bother to help the Confederates, though they made overtures of friendship.

They wanted open trade routes for cotton, much like we wanted available oil. Side stepping that, you can say that two weaker nations in NA were better strategically for GB than one strong one. Much the same reason France aided the independence from British rule while not making a colony of the US.

But the real goal of the British was to infiltrate the US economy. When you start digging, you start to see all the missing pages from the history books when you start talking about nationalized banking, currency, and various other economic issues of the day. There's a bug stink-bomb in there somewhere that I am still trying to find, because it stinks now worse than ever all these years later.

I think the real goal of the British as it relates to the Southern War for Independence (or War of Yankee Aggression whichever one prefers) was trade routes and open markets. So in a sense it was to meddle with the economy, I suppose.
The big missing page is about the central banking system advocated by Alexander Hamilton. Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian ideas were the two bookends of 19th century politics.

reply to post by _Del_

I couldn't agree with you more about the point on media centralization or less on the point about Donahue. If Donahue had ratings, he'd be on the air. It's a business man -- dollars and cents are all they care about.

In 2002, Phil Donahue returned to television to host a show called Donahue on MSNBC. On February 25, 2003, MSNBC canceled the show, citing low viewership. While he didn't garner as many viewers as Bill O'Reilly, who shared the same time slot, Donahue was the highest rated show on MSNBC at the time it was canceled, managing to beat out even Chris Matthews' "Hardball" in the ratings.[1] Soon after the show's cancellation AllYourTV.com reported it had received a copy of an internal NBC memo that stated Donahue should be fired because he would be a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war".[2][3] Donahue was the only host of a talk show on any cable network that had a decidedly anti-war stance against the then proposed invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Source