Full Version: O'Reilly vs. Krugman
Ok, to be honest, I do enjoy wathcing FOX news. PArticularly I like ot watch Hannity and O'reilly. Hannity because he is like watching footage of a meth-crazed frat boy..O'reilly because it amazes me how he can come so close to good ideas and then suddenly concoct a wild opinion out of it. Watching FOX, generally speaking, is much like watching NASCAR or, more recently, gymnastics in the Olympics: The real excitement is the constant potential for a sudden, shocking outcome.
Prior to seeing O'reilly's "debate" with the Times' Paul Krugman I had a moderately healthy view of O'Reilly. I agreed with him about half the time and totally disagreed the other half but he seemed passionate yet willing to hear even things withwhich he already disagrees.
He proved me wrong with the absolute WORST appearance on Tim Russert's show in this interview.
He was animalistic, ignorant, posturing and there seemd NO end to his string of logical fallacies and mistruths. He proved, once and for all, that there is a dizzying amount of spin in his rhetoric.
I would like to argue as many of the points he makes in terms of their validity, honesty and constructiveness to the debate. Realize that they cover many of the points in this debate we have covered in these forums so try to keep focused on O'reilly's argumentation as much as possible.
What are the strengths and weaknesses in the arguments made by O'reilly and Krugman in this debate?
Here I go:
After Krugman talks about the pre-war build-up and the success of the restarted investigations in 2001-2002 O'Reilly counters by saying Hans Blix denied that case in an interview on the factor. Of course, that interview was in 1996! In his up-to-date interview with Blix. he was told the exact opposite:
So, to stay in keeping with his agenda Bill tells us about Hans Blix's opinion circa 1996 and forgets about what he said in 2003. Not only is this dishonest but it makes it difficult to debate issues with a man who fabricates reality.
Prior to seeing O'reilly's "debate" with the Times' Paul Krugman I had a moderately healthy view of O'Reilly. I agreed with him about half the time and totally disagreed the other half but he seemed passionate yet willing to hear even things withwhich he already disagrees.
He proved me wrong with the absolute WORST appearance on Tim Russert's show in this interview.
He was animalistic, ignorant, posturing and there seemd NO end to his string of logical fallacies and mistruths. He proved, once and for all, that there is a dizzying amount of spin in his rhetoric.
I would like to argue as many of the points he makes in terms of their validity, honesty and constructiveness to the debate. Realize that they cover many of the points in this debate we have covered in these forums so try to keep focused on O'reilly's argumentation as much as possible.
What are the strengths and weaknesses in the arguments made by O'reilly and Krugman in this debate?
Here I go:
QUOTE
Prof. KRUGMAN: You have an obligation to say, 'We want those inspectors back in,' and guess what? We had the inspectors back in, and we were telling inspectors where to search and they were going. And remember, we went to war when there was an effective inspections regime back in place. We did not have to actually go to war. We were doing--we were--we had Saddam pretty effectively caged...
Mr. O'REILLY: Well, not according to Hans Blix. He came on my program flat out and said, 'They're not letting us interview the scientists,' which was a key.
Mr. O'REILLY: Well, not according to Hans Blix. He came on my program flat out and said, 'They're not letting us interview the scientists,' which was a key.
After Krugman talks about the pre-war build-up and the success of the restarted investigations in 2001-2002 O'Reilly counters by saying Hans Blix denied that case in an interview on the factor. Of course, that interview was in 1996! In his up-to-date interview with Blix. he was told the exact opposite:
QUOTE
O'REILLY: Because -- but he wasn't cooperating along those lines. Now I want to read...
BLIX: Well, I beg your pardon. He was cooperating a fair amount on access. I did not think that in January he was cooperating sufficiently on...
BLIX: Well, I beg your pardon. He was cooperating a fair amount on access. I did not think that in January he was cooperating sufficiently on...
So, to stay in keeping with his agenda Bill tells us about Hans Blix's opinion circa 1996 and forgets about what he said in 2003. Not only is this dishonest but it makes it difficult to debate issues with a man who fabricates reality.
What are the strengths and weaknesses in the arguments made by O'reilly and Krugman in this debate?
Both men seem to just ramble on and on. Bill in fact is best categorized as an 'Old Democrat.' A Democrat before all the moral stuff was taken out of the public forum. Now 'moral' means conservative.
On the economy,
With regards to Krugman vs. O'reilly... they both just made the liberal vs. conservative views on how to run the economy. No real strengths or weaknesses, just different views on how to run the country.
nice argument. Bill called him a quasi-socialist because he wants the rich taxed heavily and for the government to control the economy...which is part of the definition of a socialist.
On Iraq,
Score one for o'reilly there. Its very clever rhetoric to say something without actually saying the word. I could describe something as awful to look at, a gruesome sight, and a thing that has no beauty...but did i say it was ugly? Nope.
The exact argument i have been making. Bush didnt lie...he did what he thought was the smartest course of action witht he info he had. Krugmen's defense was that a Washington Post writer was correct when he said the threat was exaggerated. That Bush should not have listened to the leaders of a dozen nations.
Krugman goes on to say that smallpox and anthrax shouldnt be considered WMDs because anthrax isnt contagious.
On Propaganda,
Oreilly blasts krugman and krugman has nowhere to go. Krugman tries to defend michale moore and fails miserably. Oreilly brings up the 4 investigations and krugmen says they are wrong. Bush won the election...
From what i have read...even though i am a little bias towards oreilly...krugmen didnt make any good arguments after the debate moved on from the economy. Iraq, propaganda...all ridiculousy things that the left has been saying for ages. If i had to give points... i think oreilly swept the iraq debate and krugmen won (but not by much) with the economy.
Both men seem to just ramble on and on. Bill in fact is best categorized as an 'Old Democrat.' A Democrat before all the moral stuff was taken out of the public forum. Now 'moral' means conservative.
On the economy,
With regards to Krugman vs. O'reilly... they both just made the liberal vs. conservative views on how to run the economy. No real strengths or weaknesses, just different views on how to run the country.
QUOTE
Prof. KRUGMAN: Well, that's a wonderful--then you're a quasi-murderer. I mean, why--what...
nice argument. Bill called him a quasi-socialist because he wants the rich taxed heavily and for the government to control the economy...which is part of the definition of a socialist.On Iraq,
QUOTE
Mr. O'REILLY: Look, the Iraq War was a big screw-up, all right? I think every clear-thinking person in the country knows it was. First of all, weapons of mass destruction did not materialize, which was the primary motivator for the war. All right? Now Mr. Krugman and his left-wing pals throw around the lie, 'Oh, they lied.' Do you believe Bush lied, by the way, about weapons of mass destruction? You still pumping that drum?
Prof. KRUGMAN: I've never actually said the word 'lie,' I don't think.
Mr. O'REILLY: No. You're clever in your rhetorical vices.
Prof. KRUGMAN: I've never actually said the word 'lie,' I don't think.
Mr. O'REILLY: No. You're clever in your rhetorical vices.
Score one for o'reilly there. Its very clever rhetoric to say something without actually saying the word. I could describe something as awful to look at, a gruesome sight, and a thing that has no beauty...but did i say it was ugly? Nope.
QUOTE
Mr. O'REILLY: ...I'm appointing Russert as president of the United States right now, OK? I talked to Tommy Franks the other night, and I said, 'You know, what's this weapons of mass destruction deal?' And he was the general that commanded the war. He said, 'Before we went to war, Egypt and Jordan told me,' Tommy Franks, all right, 'that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. I passed that along to President Bush.' So you're sitting there in the White House, Russert, OK--frightening thought, but you are--and you're getting your top general going, 'I just heard from Egypt and Jordan weapons of mass destruction are there.' Blair's telling you, 'MI6--weapons of mass destruction.' Putin's telling you, 'Russian intelligence--weapons of mass destruction.' Your own CIA chief is telling you, 'Slam dunk weapons of mass destruction,' according to Woodward.
Now the 9-11 Commission harshly criticized Clinton and Bush for not doing enough to get bin Laden. That was one of their main thesis, and I believe that and I think everybody does. So you're told by Jordan, Egypt, Russia, Britain, your own guy, 'Weapons of mass destruction.' You know Zarqawi, a top al-Qaida lieutenant's, sitting in Baghdad because he just had a leg operation, all right? You know that. You know, as the 9-11 Commission pointed out, there's been repeated contacts between al-Qaida and Saddam. You know all this. And you don't move against Saddam? So they did have the WMDs. Say there was an anthrax attack on Krugman's apartment block, OK? You're sitting there, you had all this information, you didn't act. Impeachable offense. He had to act. That's the truth.
Now the 9-11 Commission harshly criticized Clinton and Bush for not doing enough to get bin Laden. That was one of their main thesis, and I believe that and I think everybody does. So you're told by Jordan, Egypt, Russia, Britain, your own guy, 'Weapons of mass destruction.' You know Zarqawi, a top al-Qaida lieutenant's, sitting in Baghdad because he just had a leg operation, all right? You know that. You know, as the 9-11 Commission pointed out, there's been repeated contacts between al-Qaida and Saddam. You know all this. And you don't move against Saddam? So they did have the WMDs. Say there was an anthrax attack on Krugman's apartment block, OK? You're sitting there, you had all this information, you didn't act. Impeachable offense. He had to act. That's the truth.
The exact argument i have been making. Bush didnt lie...he did what he thought was the smartest course of action witht he info he had. Krugmen's defense was that a Washington Post writer was correct when he said the threat was exaggerated. That Bush should not have listened to the leaders of a dozen nations.
Krugman goes on to say that smallpox and anthrax shouldnt be considered WMDs because anthrax isnt contagious.
On Propaganda,
Oreilly blasts krugman and krugman has nowhere to go. Krugman tries to defend michale moore and fails miserably. Oreilly brings up the 4 investigations and krugmen says they are wrong. Bush won the election...
From what i have read...even though i am a little bias towards oreilly...krugmen didnt make any good arguments after the debate moved on from the economy. Iraq, propaganda...all ridiculousy things that the left has been saying for ages. If i had to give points... i think oreilly swept the iraq debate and krugmen won (but not by much) with the economy.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Aug 20 2004, 06:35 PM)
QUOTE
Prof. KRUGMAN: Well, that's a wonderful--then you're a quasi-murderer. I mean, why--what...
nice argument. Bill called him a quasi-socialist because he wants the rich taxed heavily and for the government to control the economy...which is part of the definition of a socialist. So lederuvdapac did you think that O'reilly's finger-pointing and intimidation was acceptable in the debate? Personally, it has been my experience that those who intimidate and soap-box in a debate are usually the ones with the weakest arguments (or argumentation skills)
Anyway, Bill called him a "quasi-socialist". Krugman took exception to the comment and Bill retracted, falling back on his comment and pointing out that he only said "quasi". (Apparently Bill disagrees with you on what it means to be a complete socialist) Krugman made the quasi-murderer comment to point out to Bill how he quibbled, claiming that, by saying "quasi" it isn't a personal attack. You have to look at the entire context of that comment to know what it meant...and if you look, you will notice that Bill knew what point Krugman was trying to make.
Otherwise, don't you think he would take exception to being called a murderer?
QUOTE
Score one for o'reilly there. Its very clever rhetoric to say something without actually saying the word. I could describe something as awful to look at, a gruesome sight, and a thing that has no beauty...but did i say it was ugly? Nope.
So can I not say that someone is unattractive to me AND believe that others might find them attractive? Of course I can. In the same way Krugman could dislike and distrust Bush's uses of the intelligence without thinking he outright lied. More to the point, in the very same section Krugman explains his views on the topic. He believes that the White house was so focused on Iraq from the get go (and there is documentaiton to prove that) that they created a culture of "give me dirt on Iraq" in the intel community. He thinks Bush wanted to hear something and was receptive to information that went with his views. This is not saying he is a "liar" and even O'Reilly accepted that this isn't the same as saying he "lied". Once again, put in context the section you quoted doesn't back you up.
QUOTE
From what i have read...
You should have read it all...and I think you would be shocked to see how bad O'Reilly looks in this interview. Krugman doesn't read well in this interview mainly because O'Reilly's bullying was working on him. For that I fault Krugman for being a wimp. On this site (thought it is anti-Bush) you can egt links to video of the interview There is a large Quicktime file with the entire thing on it.
Perhaps seeing the thing is important...
QUOTE
So lederuvdapac did you think that O'reilly's finger-pointing and intimidation was acceptable in the debate? Personally, it has been my experience that those who intimidate and soap-box in a debate are usually the ones with the weakest arguments (or argumentation skills)
Anyway, Bill called him a "quasi-socialist". Krugman took exception to the comment and Bill retracted, falling back on his comment and pointing out that he only said "quasi". (Apparently Bill disagrees with you on what it means to be a complete socialist) Krugman made the quasi-murderer comment to point out to Bill how he quibbled, claiming that, by saying "quasi" it isn't a personal attack. You have to look at the entire context of that comment to know what it meant...and if you look, you will notice that Bill knew what point Krugman was trying to make.
Otherwise, don't you think he would take exception to being called a murderer?
Anyway, Bill called him a "quasi-socialist". Krugman took exception to the comment and Bill retracted, falling back on his comment and pointing out that he only said "quasi". (Apparently Bill disagrees with you on what it means to be a complete socialist) Krugman made the quasi-murderer comment to point out to Bill how he quibbled, claiming that, by saying "quasi" it isn't a personal attack. You have to look at the entire context of that comment to know what it meant...and if you look, you will notice that Bill knew what point Krugman was trying to make.
Otherwise, don't you think he would take exception to being called a murderer?
There was no intimidation. If Krugman was intimidated than he shouldnt be on the program. O'Reilly, like most of the American public, want people to answer the questions they are asked and stop dancing around the subject. I can understand why Bill would get angry. If i sat here and didnt answer your questions and instead gave ridiculous rhetoric...you would be equally annoyed.
Furthermore, socialism is basically state ownership of industry and the economy. Krugmen was advocating some of those points and Bill called him on it. Krugmen is far left and socialism is a far left ideal. Krugmen may not be a socialist but calling him a quasi-socialist has a bit of merit because it has some relevance to his beliefs. Krugmen shooting back and calling Bill a quasi-murderer makes no sense whatsoever even if he was trying to prove a point. You dont make such allegations in a formal debate.
QUOTE
So can I not say that someone is unattractive to me AND believe that others might find them attractive? Of course I can. In the same way Krugman could dislike and distrust Bush's uses of the intelligence without thinking he outright lied. More to the point, in the very same section Krugman explains his views on the topic. He believes that the White house was so focused on Iraq from the get go (and there is documentaiton to prove that) that they created a culture of "give me dirt on Iraq" in the intel community. He thinks Bush wanted to hear something and was receptive to information that went with his views. This is not saying he is a "liar" and even O'Reilly accepted that this isn't the same as saying he "lied". Once again, put in context the section you quoted doesn't back you up.
O'Reilly said..."are you saying Bush lied?" Krugmen replied with, "I didnt say those exact words." He never said what you did. The implication is that he said a lot of things to point out Bush was lying without ever actually saying he lied. Its clever rhetoric...nothing more.
QUOTE
You should have read it all...and I think you would be shocked to see how bad O'Reilly looks in this interview. Krugman doesn't read well in this interview mainly because O'Reilly's bullying was working on him. For that I fault Krugman for being a wimp. On this site (thought it is anti-Bush) you can egt links to video of the interview There is a large Quicktime file with the entire thing on it.
Perhaps seeing the thing is important...
Perhaps seeing the thing is important...
I did read the whole thing as i outlined the three main talking points in my post. the "From what i have read" was just an expression i used to display my comprehension. I dont think O'Reilly looked bad in the interview. He looked like he usually is when dealing with people who would rather make clever allegations without proof than answer direct questions. Also, if it is your opinion that Krugmen doesnt read well in the interview, it isnt because of O'Reilly but because of Krugmen himself.
I stand by my assessment that after the debate moved from the economy to defense...Krugmen was out-matched.
In my humble opinion, you guys ain't using the correct criteria to judge this 'debate'.
See, O'Reilly knew from the get-go that Krugman had him on the facts, because the facts are what they are.
Thing is, O'Reilly doesn't traffic in 'facts'.
If ya watched the match, you noticed that O'Reilly's much bigger than Krugman and that O'Reilly had the more belligerent posture and body language.
That was a strategy, I believe.
'The' strategy for O'Reillys side.
Make O'Reilly out to be some kind of John Wayne character up against a liberal, leftwing pansy.
That kind of WCW stuff would really play with Fox viewers.
When I watched Russert's dog and pony show I was amazed that Krugman didn't catch on.
I'm no fan of Krugman, but when O'Reilly kept pointing his finger in his (Krugman's ) face I wanted him to grab it and say 'Do that one more time and I'll jam it up your nose.'
That's how you keep a 'debate' real with sleazos such as Mr O'Reilly.
See, O'Reilly knew from the get-go that Krugman had him on the facts, because the facts are what they are.
Thing is, O'Reilly doesn't traffic in 'facts'.
If ya watched the match, you noticed that O'Reilly's much bigger than Krugman and that O'Reilly had the more belligerent posture and body language.
That was a strategy, I believe.
'The' strategy for O'Reillys side.
Make O'Reilly out to be some kind of John Wayne character up against a liberal, leftwing pansy.
That kind of WCW stuff would really play with Fox viewers.
When I watched Russert's dog and pony show I was amazed that Krugman didn't catch on.
I'm no fan of Krugman, but when O'Reilly kept pointing his finger in his (Krugman's ) face I wanted him to grab it and say 'Do that one more time and I'll jam it up your nose.'
That's how you keep a 'debate' real with sleazos such as Mr O'Reilly.
QUOTE(smalltown @ Aug 26 2004, 09:01 AM)
In my humble opinion, you guys ain't using the correct criteria to judge this 'debate'.
See, O'Reilly knew from the get-go that Krugman had him on the facts, because the facts are what they are.
Thing is, O'Reilly doesn't traffic in 'facts'.
If ya watched the match, you noticed that O'Reilly's much bigger than Krugman and that O'Reilly had the more belligerent posture and body language.
That was a strategy, I believe.
'The' strategy for O'Reillys side.
Make O'Reilly out to be some kind of John Wayne character up against a liberal, leftwing pansy.
That kind of WCW stuff would really play with Fox viewers.
When I watched Russert's dog and pony show I was amazed that Krugman didn't catch on.
I'm no fan of Krugman, but when O'Reilly kept pointing his finger in his (Krugman's ) face I wanted him to grab it and say 'Do that one more time and I'll jam it up your nose.'
That's how you keep a 'debate' real with sleazos such as Mr O'Reilly.
See, O'Reilly knew from the get-go that Krugman had him on the facts, because the facts are what they are.
Thing is, O'Reilly doesn't traffic in 'facts'.
If ya watched the match, you noticed that O'Reilly's much bigger than Krugman and that O'Reilly had the more belligerent posture and body language.
That was a strategy, I believe.
'The' strategy for O'Reillys side.
Make O'Reilly out to be some kind of John Wayne character up against a liberal, leftwing pansy.
That kind of WCW stuff would really play with Fox viewers.
When I watched Russert's dog and pony show I was amazed that Krugman didn't catch on.
I'm no fan of Krugman, but when O'Reilly kept pointing his finger in his (Krugman's ) face I wanted him to grab it and say 'Do that one more time and I'll jam it up your nose.'
That's how you keep a 'debate' real with sleazos such as Mr O'Reilly.
I also agree with your humble opinion.
I watched the whole program(in fact twice since it was repeated again the next day)to make sure my eyes were not deceiving me.
Everytime Krugman would calmly give his facts and opinion, O'Reilly would start pointing his fingers at Krugman at a close range and get very belligerent.
In fact, O'Reilly was given more time to speak than Krugman.
It was such a mismatch that O'Reilly at the end of the debate(? in loose terms) was so frustrated he resorted to sarcastic and loud remarks.
I rather enjoyed everyone really seeing how bad O'Reillly acted when he was cast in a different role of not being able to manipulate the program, unlike his program.
Oh yes, one more thing. At the end O'Reilly only avenue of discussion was insulting Krugman's liberal views and he is so much smarter than anyone else.
So much for O'Reilly's future in debating.
He wouldn't last 1 day on AD.
But I do disagree with your comment: that I would jam his finger up his nose. That would only be falling into his trap and you would be lying in the same gutter or sewer that O'Reilly was.
I think Krugman was okay the way he handled it. It takes a lot bigger man to not respond to those kind of tactics, than to give in and act similarly.
First off I saw the interview live. I think the whole thing and anyone "judging" it is absurd for a few reasons.
The Professor is nothing but a Bush attack hack and his attacks are rooted directly to his inherent bias.
O'Rielly is not a Bush supporter or apologist per se and has simply been put in that role in some of your minds. You want a more straight up "debate" you have to put a Hannity or a Buckley in the other chair.
Most of you commenting here simply found what you wanted to find in the "debate". What I saw was a completely biased guy on one side spewing his rhetoric (Professor) and O'Rielly who has little tolerance for anyone right or left that is a lock stepper that will not even consider the other position. I have seen O'Rielly's show and I have seen him change his opinion when presented with an argument. I would bet this professor has not done so since he decided he was a leftist.
The Professor is nothing but a Bush attack hack and his attacks are rooted directly to his inherent bias.
O'Rielly is not a Bush supporter or apologist per se and has simply been put in that role in some of your minds. You want a more straight up "debate" you have to put a Hannity or a Buckley in the other chair.
Most of you commenting here simply found what you wanted to find in the "debate". What I saw was a completely biased guy on one side spewing his rhetoric (Professor) and O'Rielly who has little tolerance for anyone right or left that is a lock stepper that will not even consider the other position. I have seen O'Rielly's show and I have seen him change his opinion when presented with an argument. I would bet this professor has not done so since he decided he was a leftist.
QUOTE(SurferH2O @ Aug 27 2004, 12:51 PM)
First off I saw the interview live. I think the whole thing and anyone "judging" it is absurd for a few reasons.
The Professor is nothing but a Bush attack hack and his attacks are rooted directly to his inherent bias.
O'Rielly is not a Bush supporter or apologist per se and has simply been put in that role in some of your minds. You want a more straight up "debate" you have to put a Hannity or a Buckley in the other chair.
Most of you commenting here simply found what you wanted to find in the "debate". What I saw was a completely biased guy on one side spewing his rhetoric (Professor) and O'Rielly who has little tolerance for anyone right or left that is a lock stepper that will not even consider the other position. I have seen O'Rielly's show and I have seen him change his opinion when presented with an argument. I would bet this professor has not done so since he decided he was a leftist.
The Professor is nothing but a Bush attack hack and his attacks are rooted directly to his inherent bias.
O'Rielly is not a Bush supporter or apologist per se and has simply been put in that role in some of your minds. You want a more straight up "debate" you have to put a Hannity or a Buckley in the other chair.
Most of you commenting here simply found what you wanted to find in the "debate". What I saw was a completely biased guy on one side spewing his rhetoric (Professor) and O'Rielly who has little tolerance for anyone right or left that is a lock stepper that will not even consider the other position. I have seen O'Rielly's show and I have seen him change his opinion when presented with an argument. I would bet this professor has not done so since he decided he was a leftist.
After reading your response I am still trying to make sense out of what you said.
For instance:
Your quote of O'Reilly was "O'Reilly who has little tolerance for anyone right or left that is a lock stepper that WILL NOT EVEN CONSIDER the other position"
Then in the the next sentence you said "I have seen O'Reilly's show and I have SEEN HIM CHANGE HIS OPINION when presented with an argument.
So which is it: O'Reilly WILL NOT EVEN CONSIDER the other position
or
I have seen HIM CHANGE HIS OPINION when presented with an
argument
As far as Paul Krugman being nothing but a Bush attack hack.
I believe his education and being a economics professor at Princeton gives him more academic credentials than a finger pointing,threatening person(O'Reilly) who makes a living mostly by entertaining us with a BULLY show on Fox.
QUOTE
Your quote of O'Reilly was "O'Reilly who has little tolerance for anyone right or left that is a lock stepper that WILL NOT EVEN CONSIDER the other position"
Then in the the next sentence you said "I have seen O'Reilly's show and I have SEEN HIM CHANGE HIS OPINION when presented with an argument.
So which is it: O'Reilly WILL NOT EVEN CONSIDER the other position
or
I have seen HIM CHANGE HIS OPINION when presented with an
argument
Then in the the next sentence you said "I have seen O'Reilly's show and I have SEEN HIM CHANGE HIS OPINION when presented with an argument.
So which is it: O'Reilly WILL NOT EVEN CONSIDER the other position
or
I have seen HIM CHANGE HIS OPINION when presented with an
argument
If I may....my interpretation of what SurferH2O said was this:
"O'Reilly who has little tolerance for anyone right or left that is a lock stepper that WILL NOT EVEN CONSIDER the other position"
Meaning O'Reilly doesn't care for mind numbed, one track idealogues. I think that ol' Bill is a bit complex in his politics and stands on issues to be labeled one way or the other.
Now as to him having a bully show.......I don't see it...do you feel bullied?
Donte ... you are right on in your assessment.
Sorry Popeye... but you obviously see what you want to see. Your are the exact audience that this Professor is preaching to. Try to actually look at a subject with an open mind. I see the professor with no open mind and O'Rielly is willing to listen to those that are not lock steppers.
While a lock stepper may have some good points on specific issues... they rarely have a fair assessment of the world as a whole.
Sorry Popeye... but you obviously see what you want to see. Your are the exact audience that this Professor is preaching to. Try to actually look at a subject with an open mind. I see the professor with no open mind and O'Rielly is willing to listen to those that are not lock steppers.
While a lock stepper may have some good points on specific issues... they rarely have a fair assessment of the world as a whole.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Aug 27 2004, 02:43 PM)
QUOTE
Your quote of O'Reilly was "O'Reilly who has little tolerance for anyone right or left that is a lock stepper that WILL NOT EVEN CONSIDER the other position"
Then in the the next sentence you said "I have seen O'Reilly's show and I have SEEN HIM CHANGE HIS OPINION when presented with an argument.
So which is it: O'Reilly WILL NOT EVEN CONSIDER the other position
or
I have seen HIM CHANGE HIS OPINION when presented with an
argument
Then in the the next sentence you said "I have seen O'Reilly's show and I have SEEN HIM CHANGE HIS OPINION when presented with an argument.
So which is it: O'Reilly WILL NOT EVEN CONSIDER the other position
or
I have seen HIM CHANGE HIS OPINION when presented with an
argument
If I may....my interpretation of what SurferH2O said was this:
"O'Reilly who has little tolerance for anyone right or left that is a lock stepper that WILL NOT EVEN CONSIDER the other position"
Meaning O'Reilly doesn't care for mind numbed, one track idealogues. I think that ol' Bill is a bit complex in his politics and stands on issues to be labeled one way or the other.
Now as to him having a bully show.......I don't see it...do you feel bullied?
I assume it is your right to spin it anyway you want to, but I only repeated what he said. So if you have problems with that than speak to SurferH2O.
No, I was not bullied. As far as O'Reilly being a bully.
What would you consider these remarks that have come from O'Reilly on his show.
1. I don't care what you say, you are wrong
2. You think you know more than anyone else.
3. Waving his fingers and sticking fingers in his guests face.
Now that is a way to carry on a debate
As for your assessment SurferH2O:
Sorry SurferH2O, but you only want to see what you want to see.
Wow surfer, it's big of you to even bother responding to the people in this thread! After all, they clearly can't think for themselves and so, have no chance of understanding you... 
It would be nice if you actually made a point beside "Krugman is a commie" or some such nonsense. It would also be nice if you made your attempts at points without insulting other posters. Your refusal to respond to the actual details of O'Reilly's faults in this "debate" leads me to believe that YOU are one of the "lock steppers" you seem to condemn. Rather than lash out, though, I will simply show another O'Reilly-ism from this debate:
Ok, he puts word in the guys mouth. Krugman telsl him "You never read the book" and O'Reilly doesn't dare defend himself on that because it's clear he didn't. He tells the man what he says, is easily refuted by black and white text in the book and so falls back to a nonsense illogical syllogism. Well, ok, so you said tax cuts are bad for job creation. so isn't bad job creation bad for the economy? So you said the tax cuts are bad for the economy. Anyone who doesn't see the childishly bad logic here well..should reread it...a couple times.
Funny part is that O'Reilly is "quoting" Krugman's book but can't defend the charge that he didn't read it. And later on he obnoxiously repeats over and over to Krugman. "Do your homework." Pretty ironic if you have the attention span to remember that, early in the debate, O'Reilly clearly had not done his homework.
I'm challenging anyone reading this thread to step back from ad hominem and stone throwing and instead, if they see merit in O'Reilly's argument, point it out. (That WAS the purpose of this thread) Just find one place where O'Reilly uses an actual fact (not something that, in his opinion, seems like a fact). You will notice that Krugman had notes and frequently used them to make points. O'Reilly had no notes and frequently shouted to make points. Please, someone, provide the notes that O'Reilly forgot to bring to the Russert show....
It would be nice if you actually made a point beside "Krugman is a commie" or some such nonsense. It would also be nice if you made your attempts at points without insulting other posters. Your refusal to respond to the actual details of O'Reilly's faults in this "debate" leads me to believe that YOU are one of the "lock steppers" you seem to condemn. Rather than lash out, though, I will simply show another O'Reilly-ism from this debate:
QUOTE
Mr. O'REILLY: Well, I don't buy that all. And, you know, Mr. Krugman is a smart guy, but Mr. Krugman was absolutely dead 100 percent wrong in his columns two years ago when he predicted the Bush tax cuts would lead to a deeper recession. You can read his book and see how wrong he was.
Prof. KRUGMAN: Actually, you can read it. I never said that.
Mr. O'REILLY: Sure you did...
Prof. KRUGMAN: I said that it would lead to a lousy job creation...
Mr. O'REILLY: ...column after column after column. You made the point, in your book, OK, that these tax cuts were going to be disastrous for the economy.
Prof. KRUGMAN: No.
Mr. O'REILLY: They haven't been.
Prof. KRUGMAN: I'm sorry, that's a lie.
Mr. O'REILLY: It's not a lie.
Prof. KRUGMAN: Let me just say it's a lie. I said they were ineffective at job creation. And if you look at the Bush administration...
Mr. O'REILLY: Hold on, hold on. Hold it. Now 'ineffective at job creation,' what is that? Semantics now?
Prof. KRUGMAN: Actually, you can read it. I never said that.
Mr. O'REILLY: Sure you did...
Prof. KRUGMAN: I said that it would lead to a lousy job creation...
Mr. O'REILLY: ...column after column after column. You made the point, in your book, OK, that these tax cuts were going to be disastrous for the economy.
Prof. KRUGMAN: No.
Mr. O'REILLY: They haven't been.
Prof. KRUGMAN: I'm sorry, that's a lie.
Mr. O'REILLY: It's not a lie.
Prof. KRUGMAN: Let me just say it's a lie. I said they were ineffective at job creation. And if you look at the Bush administration...
Mr. O'REILLY: Hold on, hold on. Hold it. Now 'ineffective at job creation,' what is that? Semantics now?
Ok, he puts word in the guys mouth. Krugman telsl him "You never read the book" and O'Reilly doesn't dare defend himself on that because it's clear he didn't. He tells the man what he says, is easily refuted by black and white text in the book and so falls back to a nonsense illogical syllogism. Well, ok, so you said tax cuts are bad for job creation. so isn't bad job creation bad for the economy? So you said the tax cuts are bad for the economy. Anyone who doesn't see the childishly bad logic here well..should reread it...a couple times.
Funny part is that O'Reilly is "quoting" Krugman's book but can't defend the charge that he didn't read it. And later on he obnoxiously repeats over and over to Krugman. "Do your homework." Pretty ironic if you have the attention span to remember that, early in the debate, O'Reilly clearly had not done his homework.
I'm challenging anyone reading this thread to step back from ad hominem and stone throwing and instead, if they see merit in O'Reilly's argument, point it out. (That WAS the purpose of this thread) Just find one place where O'Reilly uses an actual fact (not something that, in his opinion, seems like a fact). You will notice that Krugman had notes and frequently used them to make points. O'Reilly had no notes and frequently shouted to make points. Please, someone, provide the notes that O'Reilly forgot to bring to the Russert show....
Let's stop with the belittling personal commentary and stick to the issues or we will be forced to close this thread.
TOPIC:
What are the strengths and weaknesses in the arguments made by O'reilly and Krugman in this debate?
TOPIC:
What are the strengths and weaknesses in the arguments made by O'reilly and Krugman in this debate?
Bill O'reilly seems to need no introduction. But it seems that some here are unfamiliar with Paul Krugman - and can't even remember his name. To be fair and balanced, perhaps it would help to supply a bit of background.
Paul Krugman has written for both academic and general-interest publications, authored and edited more than twenty books, principly on economics (including the recent The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the New Century, one of the best - if not the best - political and economic assessments of the Bush administration yet written), and received the American Economic Association's John Bates Clark Medal in 1991 for his work rethinking international-trade theory. He taught at Yale University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Stanford University before becoming a professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton in 2000. He writes a twice-weekly op-ed column for The New York Times, was selected as Editors and Publishers Columnist of the Year in 2002, and has been described by Publisher's Weekly as "America's leading economic critic".
Further, Krugman is no "lock stepper" - he is one of the people into whose steps other people lock (including, on occasion, myself) . It was Krugman, for example, who coined the term "crony capitalism" and it is he who has led the criticism of the Bush administration's economic policies. To a very large extent, he directs much of the criticism of irresponsible administrations like our current one.
I am not a big fan of Bill O'Reilly (though I feel he is among the least of the evils of right-wing punditry and, like Krugman, is a more independent thinker than many), but however much I may disagree with many of his positions and however much I may dislike the bullying tactics which were in abundant evidence in his debate with Krugman, I at least have the decency to refer to the man by his name.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
One of the things which Paul Krugman is not is a tee-vee personality. He is an economist and a writer. Bill O'Reilly, on the other hand, is a showman. In a televised debate, then, one of these men is at a clear disadvantage. That said, I think Krugman acquitted himself reasonably well - especially considering the fact that O'Reilly resorted to many of the tactics he uses on his own show, trying to "win an argument" by being louder and more aggressive than his opponent (though, as Krugman pointed out - "This is not your show; you can't cut my mike" - O'Reilly didn't have quite the amount of control he usually does).
As has been mentioned here already, Krugman tended to rely on facts, while O'Reilly tended to rely on aggression. Sadly, the latter plays better on television. Overall, I'd have to say that both men made a few good points and both scored a few good points. As entertainment, O'Reilly clearly had the upper hand. In terms of political debate, though, there is no question that Krugman came out ahead.
Surprisingly - if you listened carefully or read the transcript carefully - the two of them actually had a number of points of agreement. If O'Reilly weren't quite so reactionary and didn't take quite as much so personally, the two men might actually get along, however much they disagree. Then again, as Surfer has intimated, O'Reilly is hardly the most stubborn, blinkered, or Bush-worshipping of the right-wing pundits.
Paul Krugman has written for both academic and general-interest publications, authored and edited more than twenty books, principly on economics (including the recent The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the New Century, one of the best - if not the best - political and economic assessments of the Bush administration yet written), and received the American Economic Association's John Bates Clark Medal in 1991 for his work rethinking international-trade theory. He taught at Yale University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Stanford University before becoming a professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton in 2000. He writes a twice-weekly op-ed column for The New York Times, was selected as Editors and Publishers Columnist of the Year in 2002, and has been described by Publisher's Weekly as "America's leading economic critic".
Further, Krugman is no "lock stepper" - he is one of the people into whose steps other people lock (including, on occasion, myself) . It was Krugman, for example, who coined the term "crony capitalism" and it is he who has led the criticism of the Bush administration's economic policies. To a very large extent, he directs much of the criticism of irresponsible administrations like our current one.
I am not a big fan of Bill O'Reilly (though I feel he is among the least of the evils of right-wing punditry and, like Krugman, is a more independent thinker than many), but however much I may disagree with many of his positions and however much I may dislike the bullying tactics which were in abundant evidence in his debate with Krugman, I at least have the decency to refer to the man by his name.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
One of the things which Paul Krugman is not is a tee-vee personality. He is an economist and a writer. Bill O'Reilly, on the other hand, is a showman. In a televised debate, then, one of these men is at a clear disadvantage. That said, I think Krugman acquitted himself reasonably well - especially considering the fact that O'Reilly resorted to many of the tactics he uses on his own show, trying to "win an argument" by being louder and more aggressive than his opponent (though, as Krugman pointed out - "This is not your show; you can't cut my mike" - O'Reilly didn't have quite the amount of control he usually does).
As has been mentioned here already, Krugman tended to rely on facts, while O'Reilly tended to rely on aggression. Sadly, the latter plays better on television. Overall, I'd have to say that both men made a few good points and both scored a few good points. As entertainment, O'Reilly clearly had the upper hand. In terms of political debate, though, there is no question that Krugman came out ahead.
Surprisingly - if you listened carefully or read the transcript carefully - the two of them actually had a number of points of agreement. If O'Reilly weren't quite so reactionary and didn't take quite as much so personally, the two men might actually get along, however much they disagree. Then again, as Surfer has intimated, O'Reilly is hardly the most stubborn, blinkered, or Bush-worshipping of the right-wing pundits.
QUOTE(La Herring Rouge @ Aug 27 2004, 10:41 PM)
Ok, he puts word in the guys mouth. Krugman telsl him "You never read the book" and O'Reilly doesn't dare defend himself on that because it's clear he didn't. He tells the man what he says, is easily refuted by black and white text in the book and so falls back to a nonsense illogical syllogism. Well, ok, so you said tax cuts are bad for job creation. so isn't bad job creation bad for the economy? So you said the tax cuts are bad for the economy. Anyone who doesn't see the childishly bad logic here well..should reread it...a couple times.
Funny part is that O'Reilly is "quoting" Krugman's book but can't defend the charge that he didn't read it. And later on he obnoxiously repeats over and over to Krugman. "Do your homework." Pretty ironic if you have the attention span to remember that, early in the debate, O'Reilly clearly had not done his homework.
I'm challenging anyone reading this thread to step back from ad hominem and stone throwing and instead, if they see merit in O'Reilly's argument, point it out. (That WAS the purpose of this thread) Just find one place where O'Reilly uses an actual fact (not something that, in his opinion, seems like a fact). You will notice that Krugman had notes and frequently used them to make points. O'Reilly had no notes and frequently shouted to make points. Please, someone, provide the notes that O'Reilly forgot to bring to the Russert show....
Funny part is that O'Reilly is "quoting" Krugman's book but can't defend the charge that he didn't read it. And later on he obnoxiously repeats over and over to Krugman. "Do your homework." Pretty ironic if you have the attention span to remember that, early in the debate, O'Reilly clearly had not done his homework.
I'm challenging anyone reading this thread to step back from ad hominem and stone throwing and instead, if they see merit in O'Reilly's argument, point it out. (That WAS the purpose of this thread) Just find one place where O'Reilly uses an actual fact (not something that, in his opinion, seems like a fact). You will notice that Krugman had notes and frequently used them to make points. O'Reilly had no notes and frequently shouted to make points. Please, someone, provide the notes that O'Reilly forgot to bring to the Russert show....
We have already tried to outline O'Reilly's points but you dont want to listen. Look, O'Reilly is a hothead...but only when people such as Krugman dance around questions and try to skew the debate in a way as such you believe he is telling the truth.
Why should O'reilly defend himself about reading Krugman's book? If he read it, he read it. Krugman saying that he didnt doesnt mean anything. I can do the same thing and simply say you didnt read the interview's transcript. Its a baseless argument and shouldnt need defense. You say you read it, i believe you. O"reilly says he read the book, no reason not to believe him, even if he had a different interpretation.
What Krugmen is, is an anti-Bush liberal who doesnt want everyone to know that. He criticizes Bush, and his policies...calls him a liar, "without saying those exact words"
and he expects everyone to think he is some moderate. O'Reilly is exposing him for what he really is. These are just semantics. He calls Bush a liar without actually saying it and he calls the Bush administration "ineffective at job creation", but he never said that the tax cuts were bad for the economy? Come on. You gotta look at what Krumgen does here. He is a master of rhetoric, choosing his words carefully so that when people like O'reilly expose his sloppy argument, he can just say he never said "those exact words"The arguments on the economy are basic conservative vs. liberal ones. Big government vs. small government. Entitlement vs. self-reliance. Government run vs. private sector. They have different beliefs on how to run the economy, nothing wrong, neither are right or wrong, just different.
If you look at the interview, O'Reilly even afrees with Krugmen sometimes...
QUOTE
Mr. O'REILLY: My opinion is without those tax cuts, we'd be in a deep recession right now.
Prof. KRUGMAN: Yeah, but are those permanent tax cuts, right? Why aren't they temporary tax cuts to fight the recession?
Mr. O'REILLY: Good question.
Prof. KRUGMAN: Yeah, but are those permanent tax cuts, right? Why aren't they temporary tax cuts to fight the recession?
Mr. O'REILLY: Good question.
He doesnt come off as the big bad bully there.
Again i point to Krugmen's comment that Bill was a "quasi-murderer". How do you defend that? Bill called him a 'Quasi-socialist" which has some merit because Krugmen wants a government run economy with people being more heavily taxed. But the "quasi murderer" comment? Come on. Does that look like a comment that a person who is doing well in the debate would make?
On the Iraq War, Krugmen easily believes a Washington Post writer over President Putin, the CIA, Mi-6, Jordan, Egypt, and all other intelligence agencies that said Saddam had WMDs. Its easy in hindsight to do such a thing because we havent found anything yet. Bill made the best argument one could possibly give on the situation:
QUOTE
Mr. O'REILLY: ...I'm appointing Russert as president of the United States right now, OK? I talked to Tommy Franks the other night, and I said, 'You know, what's this weapons of mass destruction deal?' And he was the general that commanded the war. He said, 'Before we went to war, Egypt and Jordan told me,' Tommy Franks, all right, 'that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. I passed that along to President Bush.' So you're sitting there in the White House, Russert, OK--frightening thought, but you are--and you're getting your top general going, 'I just heard from Egypt and Jordan weapons of mass destruction are there.' Blair's telling you, 'MI6--weapons of mass destruction.' Putin's telling you, 'Russian intelligence--weapons of mass destruction.' Your own CIA chief is telling you, 'Slam dunk weapons of mass destruction,' according to Woodward.
Now the 9-11 Commission harshly criticized Clinton and Bush for not doing enough to get bin Laden. That was one of their main thesis, and I believe that and I think everybody does. So you're told by Jordan, Egypt, Russia, Britain, your own guy, 'Weapons of mass destruction.' You know Zarqawi, a top al-Qaida lieutenant's, sitting in Baghdad because he just had a leg operation, all right? You know that. You know, as the 9-11 Commission pointed out, there's been repeated contacts between al-Qaida and Saddam. You know all this. And you don't move against Saddam? So they did have the WMDs. Say there was an anthrax attack on Krugman's apartment block, OK? You're sitting there, you had all this information, you didn't act. Impeachable offense. He had to act. That's the truth.
Now the 9-11 Commission harshly criticized Clinton and Bush for not doing enough to get bin Laden. That was one of their main thesis, and I believe that and I think everybody does. So you're told by Jordan, Egypt, Russia, Britain, your own guy, 'Weapons of mass destruction.' You know Zarqawi, a top al-Qaida lieutenant's, sitting in Baghdad because he just had a leg operation, all right? You know that. You know, as the 9-11 Commission pointed out, there's been repeated contacts between al-Qaida and Saddam. You know all this. And you don't move against Saddam? So they did have the WMDs. Say there was an anthrax attack on Krugman's apartment block, OK? You're sitting there, you had all this information, you didn't act. Impeachable offense. He had to act. That's the truth.
It really is the truth...just people do not want to accept it.
Then Krugmen brings up some stupid debate about what are actually "weapons of mass destruction"
Furthermore, i also do not buy the argument that we took our eyes off finding Osama. Thats just another arugment which isnt provable either way.
Then Krugmen defends Fahrenheit 9/11. This is where Krugmen hits rock bottom. I do not know any liberals who respect Michael Moore. Conservatives, Independents, and the "thinking" left all know that Moore is a liar. It is only the Anti-Bush people who worship him. Thats how you can tell Krugmen's true colors. We shouldnt even get into that because that movie has more half-truths and inconsistencies than the SBVT and Kerry combined. O'Reilly brings up some of the lies in F9/11 such as the whole, "the Supreme Court gave Bush the election."
QUOTE
Mr. O'REILLY: Miami Herald, Orlando Sentinel, USA Today and the University of Chicago investigation all went in and repudiate what he just read.
Prof. KRUGMAN: This is not true.
Mr. O'REILLY: Four--yes, it is.
Prof. KRUGMAN: This is not true.
Mr. O'REILLY: Four--yes, it is.
It is true. Krugmen just doesnt want to believe it.
Then they get into the Outfoxed documentary which isnt even worht talking about.
O'Reilly is not a Bush apologist or even considered a conservative. He is a traditionalist and that is the truth. Its funny, because i go on some conservative sites and people are so angry at O'Reilly because of how he favors Kerry and his more liberal viewpoints. If you look on a liberal site you will see the complete opposite. Its obvious he is doing something right.
Bottom Line: Krugmen didnt have the firepower that O'Reilly has. You call it intimidation, i call it facts. Krugmen was steady on the economy debate...but once he got to the war in iraq and the Michael Moore supporter...Krugmen just looked silly.
Krugman was one of the few economists to predict the Asian economic crisis of 1997-98. He is an eminent individual who has achieved far more than O'Reilly could ever dream of. O'Reilly is a peddler of odious over-simplifications and right-wing spin. He is incapable of genuine, intellectually honest debate. In this encounter with Krugman, his penchant for hysterical bluster and spluttered assertions was laid even more bare than usual.
I can not believe I have to explain to people how KRUGMAN is a lock stepper and simply put, a Bush Basher, with nothing but a pre-determined agenda set prior to him opening his mouth, or typing his words. I heard there was good fair debate here, but let's be honest.
His start was this:
Bush cut taxes for everyone. I got it, you got it, everyone got it. The "rich" got more because they pay more. Simple numbers. Bush did not simply cut taxes for the rich. That is misleading and a dishonest way to state it.
Next two sentences in the same opening paragraph:
This is hardly the truth and not a fact. If they followed an "extremely radical agenda" you would not see the Bush Adminstration sign the No Child Left Behind Bill, The Prescription Drug Bill, The extension on Unemployment Benefits, and many others. Again KRUGMAN is truth impaired.
Now I only touched on his very first statement. I am no Bush fan. But I know a total dog partisan when I hear one. Don't get me wrong the GOP has their share. But we are talking about KRUGMAN. I think he is slime.
On to O'Rielly... his goal is good T.V. But, he would not be good if he did not believe in what he says. O'Rielly gives a fair shake to both sides, and it is a shame he was put in the position of defending the Bush Administration. But that was his only option as KRUGMAN went right off the deep end immediately. You cannot let someone sit in your face and misrepresent the facts.
Now I get attacked by people here that are on the left side of the spectrum or anti-Bush because I called KRUGMAN as he is? He is a lock stepper. If you don't see it you need to take a step back and consider your own ideology. I know no one likes to consider that, but it's like those people that complain about Congress. Those Congressmen suck... but my guy is O.K. NO.... your guy sucks too.
Like O'RIELLY; I have little tolerance for mind drone lock steppers like KRUGMAN. His is not intellectually honest... and I think he knows it. He has an agenda. He will press it, and the truth be damned. Anyone ever hear of Michael Savage??? ... same wolf... different clothes.
His start was this:
QUOTE
Prof. KRUGMAN: Well, just look at the record, right? This is the first president in American history--in fact, first leader in any history, as far as I can tell--who cut taxes on the rich while fighting a war.
Bush cut taxes for everyone. I got it, you got it, everyone got it. The "rich" got more because they pay more. Simple numbers. Bush did not simply cut taxes for the rich. That is misleading and a dishonest way to state it.
Next two sentences in the same opening paragraph:
QUOTE
This is a--they follow an extremely radical policy agenda. And if you look at the groups behind the administration, look at the think tanks, they make no bones about the fact that they want to roll us back to what we were before Franklin Roosevelt.
This is hardly the truth and not a fact. If they followed an "extremely radical agenda" you would not see the Bush Adminstration sign the No Child Left Behind Bill, The Prescription Drug Bill, The extension on Unemployment Benefits, and many others. Again KRUGMAN is truth impaired.
Now I only touched on his very first statement. I am no Bush fan. But I know a total dog partisan when I hear one. Don't get me wrong the GOP has their share. But we are talking about KRUGMAN. I think he is slime.
On to O'Rielly... his goal is good T.V. But, he would not be good if he did not believe in what he says. O'Rielly gives a fair shake to both sides, and it is a shame he was put in the position of defending the Bush Administration. But that was his only option as KRUGMAN went right off the deep end immediately. You cannot let someone sit in your face and misrepresent the facts.
Now I get attacked by people here that are on the left side of the spectrum or anti-Bush because I called KRUGMAN as he is? He is a lock stepper. If you don't see it you need to take a step back and consider your own ideology. I know no one likes to consider that, but it's like those people that complain about Congress. Those Congressmen suck... but my guy is O.K. NO.... your guy sucks too.
Like O'RIELLY; I have little tolerance for mind drone lock steppers like KRUGMAN. His is not intellectually honest... and I think he knows it. He has an agenda. He will press it, and the truth be damned. Anyone ever hear of Michael Savage??? ... same wolf... different clothes.
[quote=lederuvdapac,Aug 28 2004, 12:45 AM]Why should O'reilly defend himself about reading Krugman's book? If he read it, he read it. Krugman saying that he didnt doesnt mean anything. I can do the same thing and simply say you didnt read the interview's transcript. Its a baseless argument and shouldnt need defense. You say you read it, i believe you. O"reilly says he read the book, no reason not to believe him, even if he had a different interpretation.[/quote]
It's not a matter of a difference of interpretation, leder, it's a matter of getting it dead wrong. I could say that you just posted that Bill O'Reilly is a conservative. You could say, as Krugman did, "That's a lie. I said he's a traditionalist." I could say, as O'Reilly did, "It's not a lie! You said he's a conservative." Would you consider that a "difference of interpretation"? You're quite right that it doesn't matter whether O'Reilly read the book or not. What matters is that he got his facts wrong.
[quote=lederuvdapac,Aug 28 2004, 12:45 AM]What Krugmen is, is an anti-Bush liberal who doesnt want everyone to know that. He criticizes Bush, and his policies...calls him a liar, "without saying those exact words" and he expects everyone to think he is some moderate.[/quote]
Whoa - since when does Paul Krugman want anyone to think he's a moderate? Since when has he tried to conceal the fact that he is vehemently opposed to many of the Bush administration's policies in general - and almost all of their economic policies? Since when has he denied being a liberal? Have you ever read Paul Krugman??
[quote=lederuvdapac,Aug 28 2004, 12:45 AM]O'Reilly is exposing him for what he really is. These are just semantics. He calls Bush a liar without actually saying it...[/quote]
You should be careful of emulating O'Reilly too closely. Could you please direct me to the page in The Great Unraveling on which Paul Krugman says - or even intimates - that Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction? You believe it's in there because Bill O'Reilly says it is. It isn't there, leder - it just isn't. In fact, a moment later, Krugman reiterates that he does not believe that Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction:[quote]Mr. O'REILLY: Wait. Do you believe he lied or not?
Prof. KRUGMAN: I believe he knew what he wanted to hear, and people found a way to tell it to him.
Mr. O'REILLY: All right. So you're not going to call him a liar then.
Prof. KRUGMAN: Not on that.
Mr. O'REILLY: OK. Good.[/quote]
Can it be said more plainly? And, for the record, Krugman does not say that he doesn't think Bush isn't a liar on other things. Anyone who can tell the difference between truth and lies knows that Bush is a liar. Krugman is just saying that he doesn't believe that Bush lied about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. I don't want you to think that he is totally naive.
[quote=lederuvdapac,Aug 28 2004, 12:45 AM]...and he calls the Bush administration "ineffective at job creation", but he never said that the tax cuts were bad for the economy? Come on. You gotta look at what Krumgen does here. He is a master of rhetoric, choosing his words carefully so that when people like O'reilly expose his sloppy argument, he can just say he never said "those exact words"[/quote]
Again, try not to view this through O'Reilly-colored glasses, leder. You gotta look at what O'Reilly does here:[quote]Mr. O'REILLY: And, you know, Mr. Krugman is a smart guy, but Mr. Krugman was absolutely dead 100 percent wrong in his columns two years ago when he predicted the Bush tax cuts would lead to a deeper recession. You can read his book and see how wrong he was.
Prof. KRUGMAN: Actually, you can read it. I never said that.
Mr. O'REILLY: Sure you did...
Prof. KRUGMAN: I said that it would lead to a lousy job creation...[/quote]
Can you tell the difference between "a deeper recession" and "lousy job creation"? Bill O'Reilly apparently can't:[quote]Mr. O'REILLY: Hold on, hold on. Hold it. Now 'ineffective at job creation,' what is that? Semantics now?[/quote]
Absolutely. And the semantics are Bill O'Reilly's. Krugman said "Bush tax cuts would lead to lousy job creation". Period. He said nothing about a recession.[quote]Prof. KRUGMAN: Find a place where I said that they were going to cause a recession.
Mr. O'REILLY: You said--you...
Prof. KRUGMAN: Find a place where I said it.
Mr. O'REILLY: Look, you want to call it ineffective in job creation.[/quote]
Yes, he does, Bill. And that's all he wants to say. It's you who are trying to spin Krugman's words to imply that he said something which he did not:[quote]Mr. O'REILLY: What is a recession? A recession is when the GNP goes backward. Everybody knows it's going forward... Pounded column after column: "Disastrous for the economy... Tax cuts are disastrous."
Prof. KRUGMAN: No, I said the tax cuts were not going to be effective at creating jobs, and the job creation record is lousy.[/quote]
When confronted with what Krugman actually said, how does O'Reilly respond?[quote]RUSSERT: There has been a net loss of jobs.
Prof. KRUGMAN: There has been a net loss of jobs.
Mr. O'REILLY: Since when?
RUSSERT: In the Bush administration.
Prof. KRUGMAN: In the Bush administration.
Mr. O'REILLY: Yeah, 9/11 did it.[/quote]
He admits that job creation has been lousy - though he blames the September 11 attack. He admits that Krugman is right. Maybe it's time you did, too. At least he drops the argument that Krugman said something which he absolutely did not say. Why? Because it's clear that he got his facts wrong.
[quote=lederuvdapac,Aug 28 2004, 12:45 AM]On the Iraq War, Krugmen easily believes a Washington Post writer over President Putin, the CIA, Mi-6, Jordan, Egypt, and all other intelligence agencies that said Saddam had WMDs. Its easy in hindsight to do such a thing because we havent found anything yet...[/quote]
Wrong again, leder. Look at what Krugman says - not at what O'Reilly says he says. It's O'Reilly who says "Like I'm going to believe a Washington Post editorial writer over all the people I've cited." What Krugman is actually referring to is the reporting by Knight Ridder "which was talking to the analysts off the record and not to the top officials". The reference to Jim Hoagland (a relatively conservative columnist) is in the context of how the media, colluding with those trying to build a case against Iraq, was boasting about "putting the screws on these CIA analysts who don't want to believe that Saddam is such a threat". None of Krugman's argument had anything to do with believing "a Washington Post writer" over anyone else on the existence of weapons of mass destruction. That is entirely spinmeister O'Reilly's bastardization of what Krugman said.
[quote=lederuvdapac,Aug 28 2004, 12:45 AM]Then Krugmen defends Fahrenheit 9/11.[/quote]
No, he doesn't.
[quote=lederuvdapac,Aug 28 2004, 12:45 AM]This is where Krugmen hits rock bottom. I do not know any liberals who respect Michael Moore. Conservatives, Independents, and the "thinking" left all know that Moore is a liar. It is only the Anti-Bush people who worship him. Thats how you can tell Krugmen's true colors. We shouldnt even get into that because that movie has more half-truths and inconsistencies than the SBVT and Kerry combined.[/quote]
Moore-bashing is inappropriate to this thread, so I won't take the bait on that one. But it was Tim Russert who brought Fahrenheit 9/11 up and Krugman only addresses a fact arising from the film which he mentions in his book: that a national tragedy was exploited for political gain. I don't think anyone can dispute that. Regarding the film itself, he only addresses one point: that Fox News was the first to call the 2000 election for Bush - and O'Reilly agrees with him:[quote]Prof. KRUGMAN: But Fox News was the first network to change its call...
Mr. O'REILLY: Yes, because we were right. And that call be...
Prof. KRUGMAN: ...and that was - and that - were you right?[/quote]
So I guess you could say - with absolutely equal justification - that Bill O'Reilly defends Fahrenheit 9/11 - and hits rock bottom.
[quote=lederuvdapac,Aug 28 2004, 12:45 AM]O'Reilly brings up some of the lies in F9/11 such as the whole, "the Supreme Court gave Bush the election."
[quote]Mr. O'REILLY: Miami Herald, Orlando Sentinel, USA Today and the University of Chicago investigation all went in and repudiate what he just read.
Prof. KRUGMAN: This is not true.
Mr. O'REILLY: Four--yes, it is.[/quote]
It is true. Krugmen just doesnt want to believe it.[/quote]
No, leder, it's not true - you just don't want to believe it. And Krugman - unlike O'Reilly - actually cites a source for what he's saying: the National Opinion Research Group's findings published in November 2001. Like Krugman says, "they looked at statewide counts under six standards - prevailing standard, two-corner standard, most conclusive, least conclusive, county by county, Palm Beach standard - and under every one of those Gore won." And that is the truth.
The four sources to which O'Reilly refers are only looking at the recount that Gore wanted - which, as Krugman admits, would have given the election to Bush. But by the time the case got to the US Supreme Court, what Gore wanted was irrelevant - it had been superseded by what the Florida State Supreme Court wanted: a statewide recount. And, again, Krugman is exactly right: "every statewide recount scenario had it going to Gore by tiny margins." O'Reilly can do nothing but fall back on "the four investigations" that look only at an irrelevant four-county recount. Why? Because he got his facts wrong - again.
[quote=lederuvdapac,Aug 28 2004, 12:45 AM]Then they get into the Outfoxed documentary which isnt even worht talking about.[/quote]
Actually, Outfoxed is totally worth talking about. Have you seen this picture, leder? Or only listened to what O'Reilly has to say about it? You really, really should give it a look. You might actually start turning a critical eye on the chief producer of propaganda which the United States of America has ever known...
[quote]Bottom Line: Krugmen didnt have the firepower that O'Reilly has. You call it intimidation, i call it facts.[/quote]
Bottom line: Krugman didn't resort to distortion and spin - he resorted to telling the truth. You call O'Reilly's firepower "facts". In reality, it was getting the facts wrong.
Otherwise, the thing played out like Monty Python's Argument Clinic sketch:[quote]Mr. O'REILLY: Yeah, OK. Another cheap shot, by the way.
Prof. KRUGMAN: No, it isn't.
Mr. O'REILLY: Yes, it is.
Prof. KRUGMAN: No, it isn't.
Mr. O'REILLY: Is!
Prof. KRUGMAN: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
Mr. O'REILLY: Yes it is.
Prof. KRUGMAN: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
Mr. O'REILLY: No it isn't.
Prof. KRUGMAN: It is!
Mr. O'REILLY: It is not.
Prof. KRUGMAN: Look, you just contradicted me.
Mr. O'REILLY: I did not![/quote]
I was just waiting for Tim Russert to start giving Being-hit-on-the-head Lessons.
It's not a matter of a difference of interpretation, leder, it's a matter of getting it dead wrong. I could say that you just posted that Bill O'Reilly is a conservative. You could say, as Krugman did, "That's a lie. I said he's a traditionalist." I could say, as O'Reilly did, "It's not a lie! You said he's a conservative." Would you consider that a "difference of interpretation"? You're quite right that it doesn't matter whether O'Reilly read the book or not. What matters is that he got his facts wrong.
[quote=lederuvdapac,Aug 28 2004, 12:45 AM]What Krugmen is, is an anti-Bush liberal who doesnt want everyone to know that. He criticizes Bush, and his policies...calls him a liar, "without saying those exact words"
and he expects everyone to think he is some moderate.[/quote]Whoa - since when does Paul Krugman want anyone to think he's a moderate? Since when has he tried to conceal the fact that he is vehemently opposed to many of the Bush administration's policies in general - and almost all of their economic policies? Since when has he denied being a liberal? Have you ever read Paul Krugman??
[quote=lederuvdapac,Aug 28 2004, 12:45 AM]O'Reilly is exposing him for what he really is. These are just semantics. He calls Bush a liar without actually saying it...[/quote]
You should be careful of emulating O'Reilly too closely. Could you please direct me to the page in The Great Unraveling on which Paul Krugman says - or even intimates - that Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction? You believe it's in there because Bill O'Reilly says it is. It isn't there, leder - it just isn't. In fact, a moment later, Krugman reiterates that he does not believe that Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction:[quote]Mr. O'REILLY: Wait. Do you believe he lied or not?
Prof. KRUGMAN: I believe he knew what he wanted to hear, and people found a way to tell it to him.
Mr. O'REILLY: All right. So you're not going to call him a liar then.
Prof. KRUGMAN: Not on that.
Mr. O'REILLY: OK. Good.[/quote]
Can it be said more plainly? And, for the record, Krugman does not say that he doesn't think Bush isn't a liar on other things. Anyone who can tell the difference between truth and lies knows that Bush is a liar. Krugman is just saying that he doesn't believe that Bush lied about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. I don't want you to think that he is totally naive.
[quote=lederuvdapac,Aug 28 2004, 12:45 AM]...and he calls the Bush administration "ineffective at job creation", but he never said that the tax cuts were bad for the economy? Come on. You gotta look at what Krumgen does here. He is a master of rhetoric, choosing his words carefully so that when people like O'reilly expose his sloppy argument, he can just say he never said "those exact words"[/quote]
Again, try not to view this through O'Reilly-colored glasses, leder. You gotta look at what O'Reilly does here:[quote]Mr. O'REILLY: And, you know, Mr. Krugman is a smart guy, but Mr. Krugman was absolutely dead 100 percent wrong in his columns two years ago when he predicted the Bush tax cuts would lead to a deeper recession. You can read his book and see how wrong he was.
Prof. KRUGMAN: Actually, you can read it. I never said that.
Mr. O'REILLY: Sure you did...
Prof. KRUGMAN: I said that it would lead to a lousy job creation...[/quote]
Can you tell the difference between "a deeper recession" and "lousy job creation"? Bill O'Reilly apparently can't:[quote]Mr. O'REILLY: Hold on, hold on. Hold it. Now 'ineffective at job creation,' what is that? Semantics now?[/quote]
Absolutely. And the semantics are Bill O'Reilly's. Krugman said "Bush tax cuts would lead to lousy job creation". Period. He said nothing about a recession.[quote]Prof. KRUGMAN: Find a place where I said that they were going to cause a recession.
Mr. O'REILLY: You said--you...
Prof. KRUGMAN: Find a place where I said it.
Mr. O'REILLY: Look, you want to call it ineffective in job creation.[/quote]
Yes, he does, Bill. And that's all he wants to say. It's you who are trying to spin Krugman's words to imply that he said something which he did not:[quote]Mr. O'REILLY: What is a recession? A recession is when the GNP goes backward. Everybody knows it's going forward... Pounded column after column: "Disastrous for the economy... Tax cuts are disastrous."
Prof. KRUGMAN: No, I said the tax cuts were not going to be effective at creating jobs, and the job creation record is lousy.[/quote]
When confronted with what Krugman actually said, how does O'Reilly respond?[quote]RUSSERT: There has been a net loss of jobs.
Prof. KRUGMAN: There has been a net loss of jobs.
Mr. O'REILLY: Since when?
RUSSERT: In the Bush administration.
Prof. KRUGMAN: In the Bush administration.
Mr. O'REILLY: Yeah, 9/11 did it.[/quote]
He admits that job creation has been lousy - though he blames the September 11 attack. He admits that Krugman is right. Maybe it's time you did, too. At least he drops the argument that Krugman said something which he absolutely did not say. Why? Because it's clear that he got his facts wrong.
[quote=lederuvdapac,Aug 28 2004, 12:45 AM]On the Iraq War, Krugmen easily believes a Washington Post writer over President Putin, the CIA, Mi-6, Jordan, Egypt, and all other intelligence agencies that said Saddam had WMDs. Its easy in hindsight to do such a thing because we havent found anything yet...[/quote]
Wrong again, leder. Look at what Krugman says - not at what O'Reilly says he says. It's O'Reilly who says "Like I'm going to believe a Washington Post editorial writer over all the people I've cited." What Krugman is actually referring to is the reporting by Knight Ridder "which was talking to the analysts off the record and not to the top officials". The reference to Jim Hoagland (a relatively conservative columnist) is in the context of how the media, colluding with those trying to build a case against Iraq, was boasting about "putting the screws on these CIA analysts who don't want to believe that Saddam is such a threat". None of Krugman's argument had anything to do with believing "a Washington Post writer" over anyone else on the existence of weapons of mass destruction. That is entirely spinmeister O'Reilly's bastardization of what Krugman said.
[quote=lederuvdapac,Aug 28 2004, 12:45 AM]Then Krugmen defends Fahrenheit 9/11.[/quote]
No, he doesn't.
[quote=lederuvdapac,Aug 28 2004, 12:45 AM]This is where Krugmen hits rock bottom. I do not know any liberals who respect Michael Moore. Conservatives, Independents, and the "thinking" left all know that Moore is a liar. It is only the Anti-Bush people who worship him. Thats how you can tell Krugmen's true colors. We shouldnt even get into that because that movie has more half-truths and inconsistencies than the SBVT and Kerry combined.[/quote]
Moore-bashing is inappropriate to this thread, so I won't take the bait on that one. But it was Tim Russert who brought Fahrenheit 9/11 up and Krugman only addresses a fact arising from the film which he mentions in his book: that a national tragedy was exploited for political gain. I don't think anyone can dispute that. Regarding the film itself, he only addresses one point: that Fox News was the first to call the 2000 election for Bush - and O'Reilly agrees with him:[quote]Prof. KRUGMAN: But Fox News was the first network to change its call...
Mr. O'REILLY: Yes, because we were right. And that call be...
Prof. KRUGMAN: ...and that was - and that - were you right?[/quote]
So I guess you could say - with absolutely equal justification - that Bill O'Reilly defends Fahrenheit 9/11 - and hits rock bottom.
[quote=lederuvdapac,Aug 28 2004, 12:45 AM]O'Reilly brings up some of the lies in F9/11 such as the whole, "the Supreme Court gave Bush the election."
[quote]Mr. O'REILLY: Miami Herald, Orlando Sentinel, USA Today and the University of Chicago investigation all went in and repudiate what he just read.
Prof. KRUGMAN: This is not true.
Mr. O'REILLY: Four--yes, it is.[/quote]
It is true. Krugmen just doesnt want to believe it.[/quote]
No, leder, it's not true - you just don't want to believe it. And Krugman - unlike O'Reilly - actually cites a source for what he's saying: the National Opinion Research Group's findings published in November 2001. Like Krugman says, "they looked at statewide counts under six standards - prevailing standard, two-corner standard, most conclusive, least conclusive, county by county, Palm Beach standard - and under every one of those Gore won." And that is the truth.
The four sources to which O'Reilly refers are only looking at the recount that Gore wanted - which, as Krugman admits, would have given the election to Bush. But by the time the case got to the US Supreme Court, what Gore wanted was irrelevant - it had been superseded by what the Florida State Supreme Court wanted: a statewide recount. And, again, Krugman is exactly right: "every statewide recount scenario had it going to Gore by tiny margins." O'Reilly can do nothing but fall back on "the four investigations" that look only at an irrelevant four-county recount. Why? Because he got his facts wrong - again.
[quote=lederuvdapac,Aug 28 2004, 12:45 AM]Then they get into the Outfoxed documentary which isnt even worht talking about.[/quote]
Actually, Outfoxed is totally worth talking about. Have you seen this picture, leder? Or only listened to what O'Reilly has to say about it? You really, really should give it a look. You might actually start turning a critical eye on the chief producer of propaganda which the United States of America has ever known...
[quote]Bottom Line: Krugmen didnt have the firepower that O'Reilly has. You call it intimidation, i call it facts.[/quote]
Bottom line: Krugman didn't resort to distortion and spin - he resorted to telling the truth. You call O'Reilly's firepower "facts". In reality, it was getting the facts wrong.
Otherwise, the thing played out like Monty Python's Argument Clinic sketch:[quote]Mr. O'REILLY: Yeah, OK. Another cheap shot, by the way.
Prof. KRUGMAN: No, it isn't.
Mr. O'REILLY: Yes, it is.
Prof. KRUGMAN: No, it isn't.
Mr. O'REILLY: Is!
Prof. KRUGMAN: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
Mr. O'REILLY: Yes it is.
Prof. KRUGMAN: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
Mr. O'REILLY: No it isn't.
Prof. KRUGMAN: It is!
Mr. O'REILLY: It is not.
Prof. KRUGMAN: Look, you just contradicted me.
Mr. O'REILLY: I did not![/quote]
I was just waiting for Tim Russert to start giving Being-hit-on-the-head Lessons.
I have considered majoring in, and have done some reading on, Economics. I guess this extra knowledge made me shocked at some of the claims O'reilly made.
This is a true blue economic fact.
Logic acknowledges that the more money you earn, the more money you'll save. For every additional dollar you earn, more and more of that dollar will go to savings. If you give one man with no money a million dollars, he will likely spend some and save some. Conversly, if you give a million people one dollar, they are more likely to spend all of it.
What Krugman is saying is that the additional money added to a rich persons salary is more likely saved than spent.
After which O'reilly gives some ancedotal speculation about how, if given a tax increase, he would quit his job and that would leave more people unemployed.
I don't think anyone talked about creating tax increases to the extent that it would wipe out businesses. Nor have I seen evidence that increasing (Slightly) income tax on the richest citizens will encourage them to quit working. In fact, despite the gloom and doom scenarios, many economist attribute Clintons "Tax hike" on the rich during the 1990 era as having a positive effect on the economy (It allowed him to pay down the defecit, decreasing interest rates and encouraging investment). Obviously, it didn't hurt.
Well, there was a recession in 1991. That would make the Reagan era the only boom with a bust in the middle! He then goes on to explain that the technology made in the Reagan era attributed to the Clinton boom. That fact is disputed. Furthermore, it has little direct connection to the fiscal policy and is unclear about whether the increased demand or supply-side created it.
QUOTE(KRUGMAN)
And why are the tax cuts heavily targeted towards the people who are least likely to spend the money, which is people.. ...at the top end of the income distribution.
This is a true blue economic fact.
QUOTE(Marginal Propensity to Save)
The marginal propensity to save (MPS), is defined as the proportion of an additional dollar of income that would be saved.
Logic acknowledges that the more money you earn, the more money you'll save. For every additional dollar you earn, more and more of that dollar will go to savings. If you give one man with no money a million dollars, he will likely spend some and save some. Conversly, if you give a million people one dollar, they are more likely to spend all of it.
What Krugman is saying is that the additional money added to a rich persons salary is more likely saved than spent.
After which O'reilly gives some ancedotal speculation about how, if given a tax increase, he would quit his job and that would leave more people unemployed.
QUOTE
You tax the people who are creating jobs and creating opportunities to over a certain point, they say, 'I got enough money. I'm not going to kill myself because right now I'm killing myself. And I'm not going to do it if the feds are in my pocket any more.'
I don't think anyone talked about creating tax increases to the extent that it would wipe out businesses. Nor have I seen evidence that increasing (Slightly) income tax on the richest citizens will encourage them to quit working. In fact, despite the gloom and doom scenarios, many economist attribute Clintons "Tax hike" on the rich during the 1990 era as having a positive effect on the economy (It allowed him to pay down the defecit, decreasing interest rates and encouraging investment). Obviously, it didn't hurt.
QUOTE
We're going to give...
Mr. O'REILLY: It's a difference.
Prof. KRUGMAN: Reagan's '81 tax cut--credit for the prosperity in 1999.
Mr. O'REILLY: When do you think all that R&D took place?
Mr. O'REILLY: It's a difference.
Prof. KRUGMAN: Reagan's '81 tax cut--credit for the prosperity in 1999.
Mr. O'REILLY: When do you think all that R&D took place?
Well, there was a recession in 1991. That would make the Reagan era the only boom with a bust in the middle! He then goes on to explain that the technology made in the Reagan era attributed to the Clinton boom. That fact is disputed. Furthermore, it has little direct connection to the fiscal policy and is unclear about whether the increased demand or supply-side created it.
Surfer
This is hardly the truth and not a fact. If they followed an "extremely radical agenda" you would not see the Bush Adminstration sign the No Child Left Behind Bill, The Prescription Drug Bill, The extension on Unemployment Benefits, and many others. Again KRUGMAN is truth impaired.
Lets check out these "extremely radial agenda" programs.
1. NCLB:
A very noble effort but only a front, since he has shortchanged the NCLB program.
2. Prescription Drug Bill
Now that is a can of worms that no one would use on their resume:
After 3 hours of arm twisting and whatever else and changes of votes the President got his victory
Some conservatives only voted for the bill if it was not over $400 Billion. Later on that was discovered to be a lie. Bill was actually over $500 Billion,which was known to the adminstration and covered up by a threat to the employee who has given them the figure.
3. Extension on unemployment benefits.
If I remember correctly, the Democrats had to prod the Bush adminstration into extending those benefits. They were not the idea of the Republicans.
These were only feeble attempts from the Bush Adminstration to appear "compassionate". And those 3 attempts were only misleading at the best and lies at the worst.
QUOTE
This is hardly the truth and not a fact. If they followed an "extremely radical agenda" you would not see the Bush Adminstration sign the No Child Left Behind Bill, The Prescription Drug Bill, The extension on Unemployment Benefits, and many others. Again KRUGMAN is truth impaired.
Lets check out these "extremely radial agenda" programs.
1. NCLB:
QUOTE
Bush Shortchanged Own Education Law by $9.4 Billion in 2005. Bush proposed $9.4 billion less for his No Child Left Behind Act than was authorized by the act in his 2005 budget. Bush has shortchanged NCLB by a total of $33.2 billion in his last four budgets. [Department of Ed Budgets 2001-2005, www.ed.gov]
A very noble effort but only a front, since he has shortchanged the NCLB program.
2. Prescription Drug Bill
Now that is a can of worms that no one would use on their resume:
After 3 hours of arm twisting and whatever else and changes of votes the President got his victory
Some conservatives only voted for the bill if it was not over $400 Billion. Later on that was discovered to be a lie. Bill was actually over $500 Billion,which was known to the adminstration and covered up by a threat to the employee who has given them the figure.
3. Extension on unemployment benefits.
If I remember correctly, the Democrats had to prod the Bush adminstration into extending those benefits. They were not the idea of the Republicans.
These were only feeble attempts from the Bush Adminstration to appear "compassionate". And those 3 attempts were only misleading at the best and lies at the worst.
Just a side note, I was able to dig up some footage of this debate while reading a column from moderate Paul Krugman. I have no idea if the "facts" are correct, but the interview speaks for itself. All I have to say is, O'reillys just plain mean. Many Ad hominian attacks, followed with several guilt by association tactics. Where Matthews gets loud, O'reilly gets angry.
Footage
Edited to add in:
Bill later said that this quote was taken out of context:
I don't see how, unless he started one line ahead as saying: "I must have been kidding if I said," or something to that effect. I think its fair if I start calling him O'lielly. Unless, of course, some board member could introduce or enlighten me on the real context.
Footage
Edited to add in:
QUOTE
Actually I just want to say a word about "Fahrenheit 9/11," just to talk a little bit about Bill O'Reilly's credibility on this. Bill has said on air that Michael Moore believes that we are an evil country, and if you saw the film, you know that's not true, and actually you denied in the same program that you'd said what you just said.
Bill later said that this quote was taken out of context:
QUOTE
O'REILLY: So this is the United States, who has freed the world from communism, freed the world from fascism, from the Axis powers, freed the Pacific from the Japanese -- OK? All of this, but [according to Moore] we bring sadness and misery to places all around the globe. This is Michael Moore. He believes this. He believes that we are an evil country.
I don't see how, unless he started one line ahead as saying: "I must have been kidding if I said," or something to that effect. I think its fair if I start calling him O'lielly. Unless, of course, some board member could introduce or enlighten me on the real context.
Interesting clip. It reminds me of old family arguments where the most aggressive overtalker "won" by shutting everyone else up.
I've been reading Krugman's book, which is a chronological collection of his newspaper columns. Don't remember him talking about the economy as a whole being damaged by tax cuts, but from the clip you can see where O'Reilly shifts around on the definition of economy and recession quite a bit.
That's an old family argument tactic too. Keep dancing around on the meanings of words.
Ah well.
I've been reading Krugman's book, which is a chronological collection of his newspaper columns. Don't remember him talking about the economy as a whole being damaged by tax cuts, but from the clip you can see where O'Reilly shifts around on the definition of economy and recession quite a bit.
That's an old family argument tactic too. Keep dancing around on the meanings of words.
Ah well.
I first saw SOME of the Kruigman/O'Reilly footage, of all places, on Bill O'Reilly's FNC show. While I've never been a fan of O'Reilly, I tune in to watch the circuitous "automobile crashes" he says he is able to manage without any "Spin." (It's a NASCAR joke.)
First, I was absolutely AMAZED at the beating O'Reilly took from Krugman in his own edited footage of Russert's interview.
This intrigued me. I thought NOTHING could be much worse of an intellectual beating than what I had seen. So I set about to see the whole Russert interview. Krugman's mild-mannered attempts to insert facts to back up his assertions were met with what could only be described as an "overbearing" manner at the VERY least and outright bullying and yelling to drown out Krugman's answers at worst.
Let's face it. Here is a guy who cut his teeth on sensationalism and ambush journalism at shows like "Inside Edition" who is conceited enough to debate a world-class economist and professor of some reknown with a list of awards longer than the credits on the O'Reilly Factor.
To answer the debated question and to stay on topic I must add that I did not remember a single semi-valid O'Reilly response other than yelling over Krugman and answers reminiscent of "Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!
Besides O'Reilly's checkered journalistic credentials and his propensity to miscount the number of times he tells people to "Shut Up" and cut their mics, his interview of the young man whose Dad was killed in the WTC bombings was offensive and ugly. It was then his reputation was sealed in my mind. They continued to show his main talent of PHYSICAL intimidation aided by yelling. His actions continue to mirror those sporadic pieces he did before he landed the Rupert Murdoch gig.
First, I was absolutely AMAZED at the beating O'Reilly took from Krugman in his own edited footage of Russert's interview.
This intrigued me. I thought NOTHING could be much worse of an intellectual beating than what I had seen. So I set about to see the whole Russert interview. Krugman's mild-mannered attempts to insert facts to back up his assertions were met with what could only be described as an "overbearing" manner at the VERY least and outright bullying and yelling to drown out Krugman's answers at worst.
Let's face it. Here is a guy who cut his teeth on sensationalism and ambush journalism at shows like "Inside Edition" who is conceited enough to debate a world-class economist and professor of some reknown with a list of awards longer than the credits on the O'Reilly Factor.
To answer the debated question and to stay on topic I must add that I did not remember a single semi-valid O'Reilly response other than yelling over Krugman and answers reminiscent of "Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!
Besides O'Reilly's checkered journalistic credentials and his propensity to miscount the number of times he tells people to "Shut Up" and cut their mics, his interview of the young man whose Dad was killed in the WTC bombings was offensive and ugly. It was then his reputation was sealed in my mind. They continued to show his main talent of PHYSICAL intimidation aided by yelling. His actions continue to mirror those sporadic pieces he did before he landed the Rupert Murdoch gig.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.