Bill O'Reilly vs. Glenn Beck

[Einzige]

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201005140071

Hilarious. I don't really have a dog in this fight, though. I like that Beck isn't quite the militaristic jackass that O'Reilly is, but O'Reilly's comment about the "conspiracy of the day" wins it, imo.

[ArmorPierce]

Hmm funny. I agree with beck in reading terror suspects their rights but I agree with Bill that there has not been a effort to silence free speech. I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with each of them at the same time.

[Temujin]

The difference between the two is that while O'rly is a dishonest, hypocritical blowhard who's full of shit, he's also a true believer and through that retains a certain level of consistency in his delusional fantasy ideology.

Beck is nothing more than a snake oil selling charlatan who found an easy way to make millions by out Limbaughing Limbaugh. He's playing all of the right for the obvious fools that they are, and laughing all the way to the bank in the process.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I thought we saw recently that O'Really is simply keeping up appearances now after having something of a change of heart. His fiery temper and pandering to the right has made him much dosh, so like an evangelist raping the wallets of true believers, he's essentially carrying on with his TV persona.

Beck is just a nob with a punchable face. The 9/12 Project made me want to roundhouse kick my TV.

Americans just have more interesting TV personalities.

[Temujin]

Yeah, O'rly has kinda mellowed a bit. I usually hear of his journalistic transgressions via Olbermann, and those seem to have become rather tame, especially next to Limbaugh and Beck's respective comedy routines.

Americans just have more interesting TV personalities.

The most accurate assessment of the American news media ever!

[Ritterin Sophia]

What you're seeing here is a representation of what FOX propaganda is doing to the conservative movement: The antigovernment right-libertarians are being pulled into the same group with the neoconservatives, one wants to invest the power to trample on the rights of minorities to the government and the other is so afraid of the government they oppose anything that gives it power.

[General Mung Beans]

I can't stand Glenn Beck at all.

Bill O'Reilly is surprisingly moderate for a talk radio host-he doesn't seem to just repeat the same Republic talking points.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_O%27R ... ical_views

Examples:

O'Reilly has taken to using the abbreviation "S-P", for "Secular Progressive", as a shorthand way of referring to a political category of people who want "drastic change" in the country.[citation needed] O'Reilly classifies the group as "far left", and almost always refers to the group in a negative manner. However, he says that he is not equating the negative qualities he sees in "SPs" with a "liberal" political ideology, saying the SP camp is far more "libertine" with social values:

"Liberal thought, however, can be a good thing. Progressive programs to help the poor, fight injustice and give working people a fair shake are all positive. But libertine actions damage a just society because actions have consequences. Kids who drink and take drugs are likely to hurt themselves and others. But obviously, the SPs do not make judgments like that."[16]

On March 18, 2003, O'Reilly appeared on ABC's Good Morning America and said, "If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again."[19][20][21] On February 10, 2004, he appeared once more on Good Morning America, stating:

My analysis was wrong and I'm sorry. I was wrong. I'm not pleased about it at all.... What do you want me to do, go over and kiss the camera?... I am much more skeptical of the Bush administration now than I was at that time.[19]

O'Reilly has questioned the U.S. invasion of Iraq in hindsight, in particular the performance of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

O'Reilly supports civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, but has said that nobody has the "right" to marriage; he says that marriage, like driving a car, is a privilege, not a right. He has said that if the government felt marriage was a right, then it would not stop polygamists and incestuous couples from marrying.[52] Recently, he has changed his opposition:

"Your humble correspondent doesn't really care much about gay marriage because I believe it is no danger to the republic and the deity can sort all this stuff out after we're dead. I take a libertarian position on issues like gay marriage because I want all Americans to be able to pursue happiness equally."[53]

He supports the discussion (but not the advocation) of intelligent design in schools and considers the opinion of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science's opposition to such theories "fascist"[54] He said he supports teachers saying that some people, especially in religious groups, believe that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is wrong.

O'Reilly has said that there is a lack of leadership among the traditionalists and this has emboldened the secular-progressive cause. He consistently says that using religion to justify public policy is wrong:

"Right now, religious people are the ones speaking out for traditional values. But America does not forge public policy based on religion. Thus as soon as God enters the debate, the secularists win."[55]

O'Reilly opposed the nationalized health care plan that filmmaker Michael Moore argues for in his film Sicko, saying it would create huge backlogs. He also said, however, that he thinks the government should perform more oversight functions on health care:

"...government-run health care would be a disaster, featuring long waits for treatment and an enormous rise in taxation. But there should be government oversight on private insurance companies and strict guidelines about abusing customers. There can be compromise and effective government control of medical care abuse in the USA. It is possible. But if Michael Moore's plan ever gets traction, pray hard you never get sick."[56]

O'Reilly generally supports the notion of a clean environment, although he has said that he is not entirely certain that fossil fuels are the cause of global warming. Nonetheless, he has expressed support for a long-term strategy to curb fossil fuel use. He has said he would not support the Kyoto Treaty for economic reasons, but supports the use of fewer polluting agents, more conservation, and "tons more innovation" such as tax credits for alternative fuels.[111]

He says he supports income-based affirmative action as opposed to race-related affirmative action.[114] He has also said that personally he would hire a minority to work for him over a white person of equal qualification because the minority, in all likelihood, has had to go through more challenges.[citation needed]

Corporate responsibility

O'Reilly has been critical of companies doing business with countries that are hostile to the United States. O'Reilly criticized General Electric for doing business with Iran. O'Reilly cited how NBC News' correspondent John Hockenberry did a report on Dateline highlighting GE's business relationship with the Bin Laden family and was criticized by the company, who owns NBC, for the Dateline report.[116]
[edit] Oil companies

O'Reilly has been critical of oil companies, claiming their record profits are evidence that they have price-gouged Americans with artificially high gas prices.[117] and has said he is personally boycotting products by Exxon-Mobil.[118] He has often taken an opposing point of view to conservatives such as fellow Fox News analyst and commentator, Neil Cavuto.[117] During one discussion on The O'Reilly Factor, Cavuto accused O'Reilly of "push[ing] populist nonsense."[119]

O'Reilly claims that the United States is not doing enough to make itself independent of foreign oil, stating that "If Brazil can develop an ethanol industry that makes it completely independent of foreign oil, then the USA can".[120] He said blocking Brazilian ethanol imports was "awful" and has criticized both the Bush Administration and the Clinton Administration for not doing enough to stem the cost of oil from "foreign predators".[118]

Even centre-right Republicans such as John McCain or Scott Brown has been afraid to say much of what he has said.

[Einzige]

So it's exactly as I've argued before: what you really want, and what O'Reilly wants for you, is etatism - a mindless philosophy consisting of little more than appeals to the lowest-common-denominator of low-rent white trash.

[General Mung Beans]

So it's exactly as I've argued before: what you really want, and what O'Reilly wants for you, is etatism - a mindless philosophy consisting of little more than appeals to the lowest-common-denominator of low-rent white trash.

When did I say I actually agree with O'Reilly on many of these issues? For instance I support a law that will gradually give illegal immigrants citizenship, I support free-trade pacts, I am rather internationalist and interventionist in foreign policy, support legalizing marijuana-all of which are antithetical to white-trash populist types. By your definition it seems etatism is at its extreme end fascism or even National Socialism.

[Einzige]

So it's exactly as I've argued before: what you really want, and what O'Reilly wants for you, is etatism - a mindless philosophy consisting of little more than appeals to the lowest-common-denominator of low-rent white trash.

When did I say I actually agree with O'Reilly on many of these issues? For instance I support a law that will gradually give illegal immigrants citizenship, I support free-trade pacts, I am rather internationalist and interventionist in foreign policy-all of which are antithetical to white-trash populist types.

You're blowing and buffing him up as if his form of 'moderatism' is something to be envied. Why not a legitimately small-government philosophy? Or are you loathe to embrace such a thing because it might cost you the good ol' boy vote once they see what they're actually getting?

[General Mung Beans]

You're blowing and buffing him up as if his form of 'moderatism' is something to be envied. Why not a legitimately small-government philosophy? Or are you loathe to embrace such a thing because it might cost you the good ol' boy vote once they see what they're actually getting?

Going by people such as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck who seem to have hijacked the GOP these days its a good first step. Plus as a centre-right politically I am realistic and recognize that its foolish at best for America to return to the "Good Ol' Days" of the Roaring Twenties or even the Gilded Age. By your definition what would be a "legitimate small government policy"?

[Einzige]

You're blowing and buffing him up as if his form of 'moderatism' is something to be envied. Why not a legitimately small-government philosophy? Or are you loathe to embrace such a thing because it might cost you the good ol' boy vote once they see what they're actually getting?

Going by people such as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck who seem to have hijacked the GOP these days its a good first step. Plus as a centre-right politically I am realistic and recognize that its foolish at best for America to return to the "Good Ol' Days" of the Roaring Twenties or even the Gilded Age. By your definition what would be a "legitimate small government policy"?

Minimal corporate taxes, no taxation at all on small business and worker's co-operatives, an end to the War on Terror, an end to the War on Drugs, an end to Faith-Based bullshit, a radical reduction of our military burden, a re-enforcement of the religious wall, and a great many other things "conservatives" like to pick around before pretending like they actually give a fuck about minarchism.

[General Mung Beans]

Minimal corporate taxes, no taxation at all on small business and worker's co-operatives, an end to the War on Terror, an end to the War on Drugs, an end to Faith-Based bullshit, a radical reduction of our military burden, a re-enforcement of the religious wall, and a great many other things "conservatives" like to pick around before pretending like they actually give a fuck about minarchism.

Your economic ideas are great (except with all the deficit...). However the United States is a global superpower and I think it needs to stop or at least curb such things as terrorism, piracy, ethnic cleansing, and dictatorships. I don't support invading them at least until Iraq and Afghanistan ends and then only if something like genocide is being done but military power is a good stick in "carrot and stick" diplomacy. BTW your ideas sound rather like that of Ayn Rand.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Bill O'Reilly is surprisingly moderate for a talk radio host-he doesn't seem to just repeat the same Republic talking points.

Yea-no, he's as much a talking head as Beck or Hannity.

Even centre-right Republicans such as John McCain or Scott Brown has been afraid to say much of what he has said.

There is no such thing as a 'center-right Republican', the center-right is the domain of the Democratic Party.

By your definition it seems etatism is at its extreme end fascism or even National Socialism.

Einzige is a libertarian, a progressive libertarian, but a libertarian nonetheless. The thing is O'Reilly is on entirely the opposite spectrum from him, Einzige cringes at the mention of giving the government more power and especially right wing initiatives (He's even insinuated the New Deal was in some way bad).

That said you did just defend Bill O'Reilly, on of the most dishonest, gasbags Fox has. The particular bill O'Reilly is supporting says that on simply the suspicion of being a terrorist your citizenship can be revoked, as such your civil rights are basically nil. Now you can challenge this, but given what has happened to other people classed as terrorists based on hearsay the likelihood of your plea being recognized... well it's just not happenin'. To add to this some police departments have put peace activist groups on the Terrorist No Fly List.

[Einzige]

Minimal corporate taxes, no taxation at all on small business and worker's co-operatives, an end to the War on Terror, an end to the War on Drugs, an end to Faith-Based bullshit, a radical reduction of our military burden, a re-enforcement of the religious wall, and a great many other things "conservatives" like to pick around before pretending like they actually give a fuck about minarchism.

Your economic ideas are great (except with all the deficit...). However the United States is a global superpower and I think it needs to stop or at least curb such things as terrorism, piracy, ethnic cleansing, and dictatorships. I don't support invading them at least until Iraq and Afghanistan but military power is a good stick in "carrot and stick" diplomacy.

My positions on the military are part and parcel of my position on economics: the military-industrial complex as it is presently structured is designed to do nothing more than subsidize particular regions of the nation that cannot in themselves attract legitimate industry through competition. Such considerations have far more to do with the placement of a military base, say, than any misty-eyed conservative idealism. Get the fuck rid of such bases and make these lazy sonsofbitches actually compete for once.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Get the fuck rid of such bases and make these lazy sonsofbitches actually compete for once.

You do realize that the areas built immediately around military bases are pretty much so poor that moving is not a viable idea and that it puts countless people out of a job? You'll pardon me if I'm not too fond of that idea.

[Einzige]

Get the fuck rid of such bases and make these lazy sonsofbitches actually compete for once.

You do realize that the areas built immediately around military bases are pretty much so poor that moving is not a viable idea and that it puts countless people out of a job? You'll pardon me if I'm not too fond of that idea.

Fuck 'em. I am not highly inclined to continue propping up those whose only talents are to point and shoot. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Samuel]

saying the SP camp is far more "libertine" with social values:

So SP is code for atheists (or people who don't have the same beliefs) who are libertarians or atheists who are okay with drug legalization? It is hard to tell.

He supports the discussion (but not the advocation) of intelligent design in schools and considers the opinion of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science's opposition to such theories "fascist"

Scientists can be touchy and elitist. Especially when they are surrounded by a sea of idiots and they feel their profession is under seige. Schools aren't supposed to be places for the free circulation of ideas anyway- that is college. The point of school before that is to insure that individuals have enough grounding in the basics that they can engage in society without doing things that are too stupid and have enough knowledge so that they don't have to start from scratch in college.

"...government-run health care would be a disaster, featuring long waits for treatment and an enormous rise in taxation.

This is true, but dishonest. Increased wait lines would be cause because people who weren't covered can now get treatment and taxes will go up, but so will wages (if your company provides insurance) or take home income (if you pay for it yourself).

Minimal corporate taxes, no taxation at all on small business and worker's co-operatives, an end to the War on Terror, an end to the War on Drugs, an end to Faith-Based bullshit, a radical reduction of our military burden, a re-enforcement of the religious wall, and a great many other things "conservatives" like to pick around before pretending like they actually give a fuck about minarchism.

You could argue that the military is necesary for minimalism because you still need to keep open foreign trade routes, but that doesn't require the Army or the Marines. Aside from that would gradually eliminating things like social security count? While you could argue that national health care is a good investment and helps increase productivity, social security isn't and if you believe that the government should maximize growth in the long term because it makes everyone better off, than it is not a good program. You'd also want an unemployment program that provided/required free retraining to increase the human capital pool and take that burden off companies.

Get the fuck rid of such bases and make these lazy sonsofbitches actually compete for once.

I'm almost positive that there is zero civilian demand for most military hardware. To paraphrase CC, "how many orders are there for aircraft carriers outside the military?

However the United States is a global superpower and I think it needs to stop or at least curb such things as terrorism, piracy, ethnic cleansing, and dictatorships. I don't support invading them at least until Iraq and Afghanistan but military power is a good stick in "carrot and stick" diplomacy.

Our military was built up to fight the Soviet Union, a superpower capable of overrunning Europe. I think we can reduce it and still have it large enough to deal with ethnic cleansing. Piracy requires a navy, terrorists require police and dictatorships aren't a problem as long as the dictator knows there are certain standards of behavior to follow or else.

You do realize that the areas built immediately around military bases are pretty much so poor that moving is not a viable idea and that it puts countless people out of a job? You'll pardon me if I'm not too fond of that idea.

Than use the funds freed up to pay for productive occupations.

[Einzige]

You could argue that the military is necesary for minimalism because you still need to keep open foreign trade routes, but that doesn't require the Army or the Marines. Aside from that would gradually eliminating things like social security count? While you could argue that national health care is a good investment and helps increase productivity, social security isn't and if you believe that the government should maximize growth in the long term because it makes everyone better off, than it is not a good program. You'd also want an unemployment program that provided/required free retraining to increase the human capital pool and take that burden off companies.

Social Security, in a perfect world, would be gradually phased out: those presently dependent on it would continue to receive their benefit, while everyone who will soon be eligible will gradually have the age under which they apply for it raised, until it is unlikely that anyone applies.

I'm almost positive that there is zero civilian demand for most military hardware. To paraphrase CC, "how many orders are there for aircraft carriers outside the military?

Which is part of the reason military spending is so ridiculously wasteful: it steals money out of the legitimate civilian economy for expenditure on "goods" which have no value whatsoever out of a war zone.

[Temujin]

Get the fuck rid of such bases and make these lazy sonsofbitches actually compete for once.

You do realize that the areas built immediately around military bases are pretty much so poor that moving is not a viable idea and that it puts countless people out of a job? You'll pardon me if I'm not too fond of that idea.

Of course things like gov't subsides and worker retraining and relocation programs could help with that, but that's just more big gov't for libertarians to cringe at. Better to let the Invisible Pink Unicorn Hand have its way.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Fuck 'em. I am not highly inclined to continue propping up those whose only talents are to point and shoot. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I'm not talking Soldiers, you don't seem to understand the number of civilians that are employed by AAFES and the DoD to make military posts into livable communities and just how many people outside the bases make money by providing services to Private Joe Scruffy.

[Samuel]

Fuck 'em. I am not highly inclined to continue propping up those whose only talents are to point and shoot. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I'm not talking Soldiers, you don't seem to understand the number of civilians that are employed by AAFES and the DoD to make military posts into livable communities and just how many people outside the bases make money by providing services to Private Joe Scruffy.

He does. He thinks that if the money is pulled from funding the bases you can use it to fund projects that would employ those people as well, while at the same time replacing the military with productive work.

To use an extreme example, replacing it with people who did farming entirely by hand and you'd get the same "pay for outside community benefits". And since it wouldn't require tanks, security gear or many of the other expenses or high paying jobs, it would be cheaper!

[General Mung Beans]

saying the SP camp is far more "libertine" with social values:

So SP is code for atheists (or people who don't have the same beliefs) who are libertarians or atheists who are okay with drug legalization? It is hard to tell.

I think social liberals in general.

He supports the discussion (but not the advocation) of intelligent design in schools and considers the opinion of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science's opposition to such theories "fascist"

Scientists can be touchy and elitist. Especially when they are surrounded by a sea of idiots and they feel their profession is under seige. Schools aren't supposed to be places for the free circulation of ideas anyway- that is college. The point of school before that is to insure that individuals have enough grounding in the basics that they can engage in society without doing things that are too stupid and have enough knowledge so that they don't have to start from scratch in college.

[/quote]

I agree on this point though private schools and homeschools are problematic in this respect.

However the United States is a global superpower and I think it needs to stop or at least curb such things as terrorism, piracy, ethnic cleansing, and dictatorships. I don't support invading them at least until Iraq and Afghanistan but military power is a good stick in "carrot and stick" diplomacy.

Our military was built up to fight the Soviet Union, a superpower capable of overrunning Europe. I think we can reduce it and still have it large enough to deal with ethnic cleansing. Piracy requires a navy, terrorists require police and dictatorships aren't a problem as long as the dictator knows there are certain standards of behavior to follow or else.[/quote]

I think that's why the Pentagon is advocating reforming the military to deal with irregular threats.

[Ritterin Sophia]

He does. He thinks that if the money is pulled from funding the bases you can use it to fund projects that would employ those people as well, while at the same time replacing the military with productive work.

Like what?

I think that's why the Pentagon is advocating reforming the military to deal with irregular threats.

Bad fucking idea. A conventional military can (inefficiently) deal with irregular threats, an entirely COIN military can not deal with a conventional military. This is exacerbated when you understand the reason no one fights us at conventional engagements is because we do it so much better than everyone else.

[Samuel]

Like what?

Literally anything would be more productive than the military. The hardware is expensive and it doesn't add any value to the civilian economy. You could claim that the research is a benefit, but you can have the government just fund it anyway without building hugely expensive gear of the results.

Bad fucking idea. A conventional military can (inefficiently) deal with irregular threats, an entirely COIN military can not deal with a conventional military. This is exacerbated when you understand the reason no one fights us at conventional engagements is because we do it so much better than everyone else.

So you favor splitting the army into two parts with one optomized from one job and another for the other?