FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Tiller murder: FOX's O'Reilly responsible for the hate





handfleisch
Quote:
Why I Turned Down O'Reilly
By Mary Alice Carr
Thursday, June 4, 2009

...on Tuesday morning, when an O'Reilly producer called and asked me to come on the show to "discuss the reasons why women have late-term abortions," I held fast to my pledge. I told his producer what I thought: that I had had that conversation on air with O'Reilly five years earlier and that he agreed with me at the time that the decision was between a woman and her doctor. That O'Reilly then went on to pretend we had never talked about it and continued condemning women and doctors. That the nation and those of us in the pro-choice community are reeling from the murder of a doctor who helped women. That we hold O'Reilly responsible for helping to create a climate in which hate was allowed to fester. That I refused to dignify his irresponsible behavior, not to mention his deplorable reaction to Tiller's shooting.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/03/AR2009060303238.html
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Quote:
Why I Turned Down O'Reilly
By Mary Alice Carr
Thursday, June 4, 2009

...on Tuesday morning, when an O'Reilly producer called and asked me to come on the show to "discuss the reasons why women have late-term abortions," I held fast to my pledge. I told his producer what I thought: that I had had that conversation on air with O'Reilly five years earlier and that he agreed with me at the time that the decision was between a woman and her doctor. That O'Reilly then went on to pretend we had never talked about it and continued condemning women and doctors. That the nation and those of us in the pro-choice community are reeling from the murder of a doctor who helped women. That we hold O'Reilly responsible for helping to create a climate in which hate was allowed to fester. That I refused to dignify his irresponsible behavior, not to mention his deplorable reaction to Tiller's shooting.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/03/AR2009060303238.html

I can't understand how O'Reilly could be responsible for the killing? What would his motive have been? Obviously it is more to his detriment that the killing took place and his name is being used in supporting anti-abortionists. Guess he must be completely in the HOT spot at Fox, and possibly has been given good advice by the lawyers not to say anything.
Solon_Poledourus
Handfleisch my man...
I almost posted about this topic myself, but I couldn't get my head around the way I am seeing people take this situation, publicly. So now that you have posted, here are my two cents.

People can NOT have it both ways. O'Reilley and others like him deny the fact that their vilification and hate speech contribute to the climate in which people like Dr. Tiller get killed. These same people who deny their part in creating this climate, will invariably blame pornography for helping create a climate of misogyny. He wants it both ways.

Bill has even gone so far as to blame that Katie Perry song "I kissed a girl" for turning preteen girls into lesbians. Yet, he claims that his comments had no part in creating the atmosphere which led to Tillers death:

Quote:
Tiller, O'Reilly likes to say, "destroys fetuses for just about any reason right up until the birth date for $5,000." He's guilty of "Nazi stuff," said O'Reilly on June 8, 2005; a moral equivalent to NAMBLA and al-Qaida, he suggested on March 15, 2006. "This is the kind of stuff happened in Mao's China, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union," said O'Reilly on Nov. 9, 2006.

O'Reilly has also frequently linked Tiller to his longtime obsession, child molestation and rape. Because a young teenager who received an abortion from Tiller could, by definition, have been a victim of statutory rape, O'Reilly frequently suggested that the clinic was covering up for child rapists (rather than teenage boyfriends) by refusing to release records on the abortions performed.


Full article at Salon.

If a stupid song about two girls kissing can turn a young girl into a lesbian, and if pornography can create rapists, then suggesting an abortion doctor covers up for statutory rapists, and comparing him to Nazis, Commies, al-Qaeda, and NAMBLA, can create a murderer. Period.
Solon_Poledourus
deanhills wrote:
I can't understand how O'Reilly could be responsible for the killing? What would his motive have been? Obviously it is more to his detriment that the killing took place and his name is being used in supporting anti-abortionists. Guess he must be completely in the HOT spot at Fox, and possibly has been given good advice by the lawyers not to say anything.
No, O'Reilley wasn't directly responsible, and therefor needs no motive. It's just that his comments and vilification may have influenced the public to the point that a man decided he was justified in killing Tiller.
Bikerman
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I can't understand how O'Reilly could be responsible for the killing? What would his motive have been? Obviously it is more to his detriment that the killing took place and his name is being used in supporting anti-abortionists. Guess he must be completely in the HOT spot at Fox, and possibly has been given good advice by the lawyers not to say anything.
No, O'Reilley wasn't directly responsible, and therefor needs no motive. It's just that his comments and vilification may have influenced the public to the point that a man decided he was justified in killing Tiller.

In criminal law O'Reilly COULD be charged with incitement. Incitement to murder carries a maximum life sentence.....
Solon_Poledourus
Bikerman wrote:
In criminal law O'Reilly COULD be charged with incitement. Incitement to murder carries a maximum life sentence.....
Not just him. There was an "abortion watch" type group, I can't remember the name of them, but they had been harassing him and coming just shy of calling for his head on a pike.

On a side note:
Scott Roeder, the accused killer, has said "I know there are many other similar events planned around the country as long as abortion remains legal.” If this isn't domestic terrorism, then I'm a Swedish meatball. Which brings up another question(and makes me hungery); if torture works so well on terrorists, and Roeder apparently knows about impending murders, why are we not torturing him?
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I can't understand how O'Reilly could be responsible for the killing? What would his motive have been? Obviously it is more to his detriment that the killing took place and his name is being used in supporting anti-abortionists. Guess he must be completely in the HOT spot at Fox, and possibly has been given good advice by the lawyers not to say anything.
No, O'Reilley wasn't directly responsible, and therefor needs no motive. It's just that his comments and vilification may have influenced the public to the point that a man decided he was justified in killing Tiller.
So if someone went ahead and killed Bush last year, then they would not have charged the guy who killed him, but the media for being anti-Bush? I can't imagine anyone more hated than Bush and definitely the media played a very large role in anti-Bush sentiment.
Solon_Poledourus
deanhills wrote:
So if someone went ahead and killed Bush last year, then they would not have charged the guy who killed him, but the media for being anti-Bush?
What?? The killer is going to trial, no doubt. Nobody is suggesting letting him off the hook and solely blaming the media. But for the media people who took part in comparing him to Nazis, they should own up to that responsibility.
deanhills wrote:
I can't imagine anyone more hated than Bush and definitely the media played a very large role in anti-Bush sentiment.
The difference is that nobody tried to kill Bush. If someone had, then they would have been charged with that crime. And if it happened during a particularly bad turn for Bush in the media, then those media personalities should have been held accountable for coaxing this behavior out of people.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
deanhills wrote:
So if someone went ahead and killed Bush last year, then they would not have charged the guy who killed him, but the media for being anti-Bush?
What?? The killer is going to trial, no doubt. Nobody is suggesting letting him off the hook and solely blaming the media. But for the media people who took part in comparing him to Nazis, they should own up to that responsibility.
deanhills wrote:
I can't imagine anyone more hated than Bush and definitely the media played a very large role in anti-Bush sentiment.
The difference is that nobody tried to kill Bush. If someone had, then they would have been charged with that crime. And if it happened during a particularly bad turn for Bush in the media, then those media personalities should have been held accountable for coaxing this behavior out of people.
Perhaps he was more protected than Tiller was. Someone at least managed to throw a shoe at him Laughing but that is as far as they got .... although probably we should be careful with this post, next thing the CIA is going to check up on us Laughing

BTW why are you so sure that Bush is going to stand trial? I thought Obama had his chance with GITMO and he decided not to go for it?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/opinion/29friedman.html
Solon_Poledourus
deanhills wrote:
Perhaps he was more protected than Tiller was. Someone at least managed to throw a shoe at him but that is as far as they got .... although probably we should be careful with this post, next thing the CIA is going to check up on us
Well, that's all a whole other topic anyway.
deanhills wrote:
BTW why are you so sure that Bush is going to stand trial? I thought Obama had his chance with GITMO and he decided not to go for it?
I'm very confused. I said the killer(of Dr. Tiller) is going to stand trial. Never said anything about Bush standing trial.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
I'm very confused. I said the killer(of Dr. Tiller) is going to stand trial. Never said anything about Bush standing trial.
Oops! I must have misinterpreted your wording, you must have meant Tiller below and not Bush:
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
deanhills wrote:
So if someone went ahead and killed Bush last year, then they would not have charged the guy who killed him, but the media for being anti-Bush?
What?? The killer is going to trial, no doubt. Nobody is suggesting letting him off the hook and solely blaming the media.
ocalhoun
Two beliefs I hold that conflict with a whole lot of what's being said in this topic:

1: Personal responsibility. People make their own choices, and have their own consequences. People also choose what to be influenced by.

2: Freedom of Speech (and indeed, maximum personal freedom of all kinds). I don't think any communication should ever be outlawed, no matter what effect it has.
Solon_Poledourus
ocalhoun wrote:
1: Personal responsibility. People make their own choices, and have their own consequences. People also choose what to be influenced by.
Agreed. That's why I'm not protesting Roeders arrest and impending trial. Also, I don't think most people actually "choose" what influences them, especially if they are mentally or emotionally vulnerable, as seems the case with Roeder.
ocalhoun wrote:
2: Freedom of Speech (and indeed, maximum personal freedom of all kinds). I don't think any communication should ever be outlawed, no matter what effect it has.
I never said anything about outlawing any communication or inhibiting anyone's right to free speech. But with that right comes responsibility, especially when you have the ability to speak to, and potentially influence, millions. Should Bill O'Reilley and others like him be prosecuted for murder? I don't know if I would go that far. I do think he should "man up" and take responsibility for helping Roeder think that this was a good decision.

As I said in my previous post, Bill O'Reilley is one of those guys who has, and will continue to, tell us that we should hold accountable a song for potentially turning little girls gay and pornography for creating rapists. For him to step back after Tiller's death and claim no responsibility is hypocritical at best, and criminal at worst.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
As I said in my previous post, Bill O'Reilley is one of those guys who has, and will continue to, tell us that we should hold accountable a song for potentially turning little girls gay and pornography for creating rapists. For him to step back after Tiller's death and claim no responsibility is hypocritical at best, and criminal at worst.
I'm beginning to warm up to this idea as last night as I was watching Oprah I was thinking about Dr. Phil and I wonder how many relationships have gone south as a result of their good-intended "solutions". Probably good to make an example of "public responsibility" when the media is playing the role of "advisor" or in the position of influencing opinions that could be harmful for the public. Mind you, that is probably going to amount to censorship of a kind, will probably be a tough one as the media of course can also employ the most expensive and most savvy lawyers and they are making lots of money out of these "talk shows".
ocalhoun
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
Should Bill O'Reilley and others like him be prosecuted for murder? I don't know if I would go that far. I do think he should "man up" and take responsibility for helping Roeder think that this was a good decision.

[...] is hypocritical at best, and criminal at worst.

If a hypocrite can get prosecuted for speaking his mind (or publishing it in press i.e. 1700's speak for media), then the right to free speech is a farce, itself a hypocritical statement in place only to keep the population placated in the misguided notion that they are free.

That said, it would be morally (though not legally) imperative to give some sort of an apology if his statements truly did drive a peaceful man to murder.

What this really is though:
A sniping attack of people trying to use a marginally related event to bring down and shut up somebody they don't like.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
Should Bill O'Reilley and others like him be prosecuted for murder? I don't know if I would go that far. I do think he should "man up" and take responsibility for helping Roeder think that this was a good decision.

[...] is hypocritical at best, and criminal at worst.

If a hypocrite can get prosecuted for speaking his mind (or publishing it in press i.e. 1700's speak for media), then the right to free speech is a farce, itself a hypocritical statement in place only to keep the population placated in the misguided notion that they are free.

That said, it would be morally (though not legally) imperative to give some sort of an apology if his statements truly did drive a peaceful man to murder.

What this really is though:
A sniping attack of people trying to use a marginally related event to bring down and shut up somebody they don't like.
Difficult situation this one. Freedom of speech vs moral responsibility of the media. Would be difficult for him to apologize right now however as that would be an admission of guilt and obviously open him up for a number of civil suits? Once that has been achieved all the media people may be liable to be sued in some or other way, as indirectly they have a great influence on people. How about teenagers getting obese because of all the advertising on TV?
Solon_Poledourus
ocalhoun wrote:
If a hypocrite can get prosecuted for speaking his mind (or publishing it in press i.e. 1700's speak for media), then the right to free speech is a farce, itself a hypocritical statement in place only to keep the population placated in the misguided notion that they are free.
Like I said, I don't know if I'd go as far as prosecution. Unless there was evidence of O'Reilley telling him directly to go on a killing spree, then there's not alot anyone can do. I just think the hateful attacks he and others spew about abortion doctors, gays, drug addicts, etc. are irresponsible in their delivery. It contributes to an atmosphere in which fringe lunatics feel justified in violence.
Quote:
That said, it would be morally (though not legally) imperative to give some sort of an apology if his statements truly did drive a peaceful man to murder.
He didn't drive a "peaceful" man to murder. Roeder is a nut with a history of being a nut. An apology would be nice, though.
Quote:
What this really is though:
A sniping attack of people trying to use a marginally related event to bring down and shut up somebody they don't like.
I personally don't want O'Reilley shut down, same for Hannity and Coulter et al. For the same reasons I don't want Oberman and Maddow and their buddies shut down.

The difference is that O'Reilley and Hannity and their people keep shouting "fire" in a movie theater. Then they carefully step back and claim no responsibility for the people who get trampled in the panicked attempt to get to the door.

There are people like Scott Roeder and James von Brunn out there, they have unstable minds and anger issues. They also identify closely with the beliefs of the far right. When they see and hear O'Reilley calling Dr. Tiller a mass murderer and comparing him to Stalin and NAMBLA, these very unstable people take it upon themselves to be the extremist arm of that movement, and they feel vindicated because of what O'Reilley has said.

This doesn't make O'Reilley directly accountable, nor does it make him criminally culpable, but it does make him irresponsible. That's why I say that he should "man up" and take at least partial responsibility for helping create this climate. If one disagrees with abortion being legal, then they should have the right to say so. When that person has the ability to speak to millions as the #1 cable news network, they need to keep in mind that what they say carries weight. And when this opinion is delivered in an angry, accusatory, vilification of an individual, it may lead to an unstable person taking it too far.

An apology would do alot, and rethinking how he delivers his opinions would do more.
But ol' "Pontius Pilate" O'Reilley is just going to keep washing his hands of the entire thing.
Moonspider
Has Roeder cited O'Reilly as a source of influcence or affirmation?

R,
M
Solon_Poledourus
Moonspider wrote:
Has Roeder cited O'Reilly as a source of influcence or affirmation?
Not to my knowledge. Whether he directly influenced Roeder or not is something we will probably never know for fact. But the actions of Roeder should get people like O'Reilley to think more carefully about how they deliver their views.

Let's say I euthanize animals in a kennel for a living. Then you go on TV and say "Solon is a mass puppy murderer" for a few years. Then someone with heavy ties to PETA shoots me dead. Wouldn't you at least regret the way you said it, even if you disagreed with what I was doing? I mean, you may not be fully responsible for them killing me, but you have to know deep down that your words helped nudge the guy along, at least a little bit.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
Let's say I euthanize animals in a kennel for a living. Then you go on TV and say "Solon is a mass puppy murderer" for a few years. Then someone with heavy ties to PETA shoots me dead. Wouldn't you at least regret the way you said it, even if you disagreed with what I was doing? I mean, you may not be fully responsible for them killing me, but you have to know deep down that your words helped nudge the guy along, at least a little bit.
So if while I am growing up my mother keeps on telling me what an awful person my father is and she wishes he were dead, then if I do shoot him dead, then that is her fault and not mine? I don't agree with that. This guy took a gun, aimed it and shot someone dead. His choice. Not one of us on this earth is living on an island. We are all connected, but responsible for our own actions.
Solon_Poledourus
deanhills wrote:
So if while I am growing up my mother keeps on telling me what an awful person my father is and she wishes he were dead, then if I do shoot him dead, then that is her fault and not mine?
I never said it would be completely that persons fault. But if your mother tells you what a bad guy he is, and then you shot him, can you honestly tell me that you wouldn't hold her at least a little accountable? I know the courts would.
deanhills wrote:
I don't agree with that. This guy took a gun, aimed it and shot someone dead. His choice. Not one of us on this earth is living on an island. We are all connected, but responsible for our own actions.
I totally agree that Roeder is responsible for his own actions. I will say again, that I never said he wasn't.

I think it is awfully hypocritical of people to say that the media has taken over, and influences political elections, and runs our lives, etc(which are things many of you guys have said in other threads). Then turn right around and say that there is no way that same media could have influenced a guy to commit a violent act.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
I think it is awfully hypocritical of people to say that the media has taken over, and influences political elections, and runs our lives, etc(which are things many of you guys have said in other threads). Then turn right around and say that there is no way that same media could have influenced a guy to commit a violent act.
Both are equally bad, i.e. the media influencing people's decisions during election time, as well as influencing them to commit violent acts. Worse - now that people are saying that someone from the media is responsible for getting O'Reilly to shoot Tiller, possibly that fact if proven right, could influence other people from murdering people in a similar way. Perhaps now is the time more than ever to caution people that they are responsible for their own actions.
Solon_Poledourus
deanhills wrote:
Worse - now that people are saying that someone from the media is responsible for getting O'Reilly to shoot Tiller,
I have a really hard time going this far. As I said, I don't think it was like O'Reilley directly influenced, or was even the sole or main influence, in Roeders actions. I just can't help but think that he contributed to a diatribe against Dr. Tiller, which Roeder agreed with, which helped in some way to vindicate Roeders actions. Without O'Reilley, he probably would have killed someone anyway, maybe even Tiller.

But as you said in your hypothetical about your mother, it would be your responsibility for shooting your father. But what kind of person would your mother be if she felt no responsibility for her words?
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
But as you said in your hypothetical about your mother, it would be your responsibility for shooting your father. But what kind of person would your mother be if she felt no responsibility for her words?
This is of course an analogy, my own mother (who is deceased) loved my father. But back to the analogy this mother could have been an alcoholic and unaware of what she said. I'm sure you must have come across mothers who abuse their children (not always physically but psychologically) and then the next morning wake up with not a single memory of what they had said the evening before. Usually mothers who feel responsibility would be careful of their words of course, mothers would do anything to protect their children?
Moonspider
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
Moonspider wrote:
Has Roeder cited O'Reilly as a source of influcence or affirmation?
Not to my knowledge. Whether he directly influenced Roeder or not is something we will probably never know for fact. But the actions of Roeder should get people like O'Reilley to think more carefully about how they deliver their views.

Let's say I euthanize animals in a kennel for a living. Then you go on TV and say "Solon is a mass puppy murderer" for a few years. Then someone with heavy ties to PETA shoots me dead. Wouldn't you at least regret the way you said it, even if you disagreed with what I was doing? I mean, you may not be fully responsible for them killing me, but you have to know deep down that your words helped nudge the guy along, at least a little bit.


The attitudes expressed here are dangerously close to censorship or something akin to the "thought police" of Orwell's dystopian vision.

I have yet to see any indication that Roeder was influenced or felt affirmation from the comments of Bill O'Reilly. Yet many people in this thread don't believe that matters! The mere fact that Bill O'Reilly believed the doctor's acts to be immoral and vociferously voiced that opinion, even calling for protests/civil disobedience at his office, seems to many here sufficient grounds for at least O'Reilly's vilification in the matter, if not downright prosecution.

O'Reilly never called for the doctor's death. To my knowledge he never even uttered anything similar to King Henry II's rhetorical rant of "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?" Nevertheless many here imply that O'Reilly bears at least some responsibility (even if Roeder doesn't acknowledge O'Reilly).

Am I the only one who finds this a little creepy?

R,
M
Solon_Poledourus
Moonspider wrote:
The attitudes expressed here are dangerously close to censorship or something akin to the "thought police" of Orwell's dystopian vision.
Not even close. As I said before, and I will say yet again, I don't know if O'Reilley directly influenced him. But how can O'Reilley spend a few years calling a guy a mass murderer, compare him to some of the most notorious dictators of all time, liken him to NAMBLA and accuse him of covering up for statutory rapists, and then not express the least bit of remorse for those words when a guy pumps a few rounds into him? Any normal human being with feelings and compassion would at least apologize for saying such things, which may not have, but could have been what made the guy into a target.

I don't think anyone needs to be censored, much less to an Orwellian extreme with thought police and such, that's a ridiculous leap to make. But when you have the right to free speech, and the ability to speak to millions, there also comes a responsibility to know that your words carry weight.

It's likely that the bigger influence came from Operation Rescue and their Tiller Watch page, which has been deleted(self censorship?). Roeder posted many rants on their site about Tiller. Operation Rescue has been known as part of the "lunatic fringe" for some time, and they probably influenced Roeder more than any other source. Except for the fact that Operation Rescue constantly followed O'Reilly and protested where he told them to protest. So it's very likely that Roeder saw O'Reilly as an influence.
Quote:

Producers for Fox News host Bill O'Reilly were in Wichita last Friday where they confronted late-term abortionist George R. Tiller as he visited a Quick Trip gas station. Operation Rescue assisted the O'Reilly crew in locating Tiller for the impromptu interview.
This is from the Christian News Wire. So yes, it's almost impossible that Roeder wasn't influenced by O'Reilly's vicious slander.

So should O'Reilly be censored? No. Is he criminally culpable? No. Did his words help push a guy towards an act of murder? It's possible. And an apology for such would be nice.
deanhills
Moonspider wrote:
The attitudes expressed here are dangerously close to censorship or something akin to the "thought police" of Orwell's dystopian vision.

I have yet to see any indication that Roeder was influenced or felt affirmation from the comments of Bill O'Reilly. Yet many people in this thread don't believe that matters! The mere fact that Bill O'Reilly believed the doctor's acts to be immoral and vociferously voiced that opinion, even calling for protests/civil disobedience at his office, seems to many here sufficient grounds for at least O'Reilly's vilification in the matter, if not downright prosecution.

O'Reilly never called for the doctor's death. To my knowledge he never even uttered anything similar to King Henry II's rhetorical rant of "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?" Nevertheless many here imply that O'Reilly bears at least some responsibility (even if Roeder doesn't acknowledge O'Reilly).

Am I the only one who finds this a little creepy?

R,
M

No definitely not. Once censorship starts, where will it end? And who will be doing the censoring? And as you pointed out, perhaps O'Reilly is much less "guilty" than what he is accused off. There were many other groups that could have had much more influence on Roeder in a much closer range, especially the anti-abortionists themselves.
Solon_Poledourus
deanhills wrote:
No definitely not. Once censorship starts, where will it end? And who will be doing the censoring?
Who mentioned anything about censoring O'Reilly?
deanhills wrote:
And as you pointed out, perhaps O'Reilly is much less "guilty" than what he is accused off. There were many other groups that could have had much more influence on Roeder in a much closer range, especially the anti-abortionists themselves.
Read the link in my above post.
1 - Roeder was an avid speaker alongside Operation Rescue, who had an entire section of their site dedicated to the slandering of Tiller.
2 - Operation Rescue also worked alongside the O'Reilly crew to organize protests and to basically hound Tiller.
3 - Given the above two facts, Roeder was very familiar with, and in all likelihood agreed with, O'Reilly's views on Tiller(which is obvious).
4 - O'Reilly spent years labeling Tiller a "mass murderer", among other things(which is slander, because nothing Tiller did was illegal).
5 - Roeder shoots Tiller.

Is this really that difficult a maze for people to navigate?

You guys all seem very smart, and I am dumbfounded that I feel I have to draw a picture for you.

To make it CRYSTAL CLEAR:
I don't think O'Reilly forced Roeder to pick up a gun and shoot a man.
I also don't think O'Reilly should be censored.
I do, however, think that this wonderful right to free speech that we keep talking about comes with a great deal of responsibility.
I also think O'Reilley(among others) have abused this right, possibly to the point of contributing to one mans justification for murder. There is evidence to show as much.

It's like a Chinese Buffet restaurant: Just because it's all you can eat, doesn't mean you should eat it all.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
deanhills wrote:
No definitely not. Once censorship starts, where will it end? And who will be doing the censoring?
Who mentioned anything about censoring O'Reilly?
I don't understand. I thought you have been trying to let us know that he has been responsible for influencing Roeder to kill Tiller? He should not have said what he have said? Isn't that censoring?

Solon_Poledourus wrote:
deanhills wrote:
And as you pointed out, perhaps O'Reilly is much less "guilty" than what he is accused off. There were many other groups that could have had much more influence on Roeder in a much closer range, especially the anti-abortionists themselves.
Read the link in my above post.
1 - Roeder was an avid speaker alongside Operation Rescue, who had an entire section of their site dedicated to the slandering of Tiller.
2 - Operation Rescue also worked alongside the O'Reilly crew to organize protests and to basically hound Tiller.
3 - Given the above two facts, Roeder was very familiar with, and in all likelihood agreed with, O'Reilly's views on Tiller(which is obvious).
4 - O'Reilly spent years labeling Tiller a "mass murderer", among other things(which is slander, because nothing Tiller did was illegal).
5 - Roeder shoots Tiller.

Is this really that difficult a maze for people to navigate?

You guys all seem very smart, and I am dumbfounded that I feel I have to draw a picture for you.

To make it CRYSTAL CLEAR:
I don't think O'Reilly forced Roeder to pick up a gun and shoot a man.
I also don't think O'Reilly should be censored.
I do, however, think that this wonderful right to free speech that we keep talking about comes with a great deal of responsibility.
I also think O'Reilley(among others) have abused this right, possibly to the point of contributing to one mans justification for murder. There is evidence to show as much.

It's like a Chinese Buffet restaurant: Just because it's all you can eat, doesn't mean you should eat it all.
I don't understand what your point is with this? Where are you going with this discussion? As soon as we say anything to do with censorship, you turn it into something different, and then say we did not get it? What do you want to have happen to O'Reilly if not censorship? If anyone is going to sort O'Reilly out by saying he is not supposed to say this that or the other and it is improper and abusing his rights to say this that or the other, it will be censorship whether you want it to be or not.

Censorship:
Quote:
Throughout history, societies practiced various forms of censorship in the belief that the community, as represented by the government, was responsible for molding the individual. For example, the ancient Greek philosopher Plato advocated various degrees of censorship in The Republic; the content of important texts and the dissemination of knowledge were tightly controlled in ancient Chinese society as is much information in modern China; and for centuries the Roman Catholic Church's Index Librorum Prohibitorum proscribed much literature as contrary to the church's teachings.

The English-speaking world began wrestling with issues of censorship in the seventeenth century. In his Areopagitica (1644), John Milton argued in favor of the right to publish, free from government restraint. In the United States, the First Amendment to the Constitution (1787) guarantees Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press. When a U.S. government agency attempts to prohibit speech or writing, the party being censored frequently raises these First Amendment rights. Such cases usually involve communication that the government perceives as harmful to itself or the public.

Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/censor
handfleisch
The whole you wanna censor poor little O'Reilly line is childish bunk. At this point anyone with a shred of decency should reel in disgust from O'Reilly and FOXnews trafficking in and profiting from goading people into jingoism and violent reaction. All advertising should be pulled, Murdoch should be grilled and hounded for his creation, O'Reilly should be resigning in total shame. We are talking about the grossly irresponsible use of the airwaves, which are owned by we the people.

The point is not about free speech or censorship. Technically, Holocaust denial, propagating neo-Nazism, and promoting pedophilia are also protected free speech and should not be censored in the USA. That does not mean we as a people would have it on the national airwaves. (Some of it probably is on some local radio broadcasts and cable access channels, and so be it under the US system of free speech.) With the US system of free speech, and especially under the (disastrously) deregulated system we currently have with little control on ownership monopolies or equal time rules, there is even more responsibility on the stations to ensure democracy and open debate is being supported and served. At Fox News the opposite is true, with knee jerk reactions and inflammatory rhetoric broadcast 24/7, and this domestic terrorism at the medical clinic shows the dangerous outcome of that.

If you haven't seen this film, you should http://www.outfoxed.org
Solon_Poledourus
deanhills wrote:
I don't understand. I thought you have been trying to let us know that he has been responsible for influencing Roeder to kill Tiller? He should not have said what he have said? Isn't that censoring?
Yet again, I never said he was solely responsible. Just that he was an influence. And yet again, I never said he should be censored. What did I say? I said he should "man up" and take responsibility for contributing to an atmosphere which promoted the vicious hounding of an innocent man, who ended up getting killed. My exact words were "an apology would be nice".
Quote:
I don't understand what your point is with this? Where are you going with this discussion?
Seriously? I drew you a picture and everything...
Quote:
As soon as we say anything to do with censorship, you turn it into something different, and then say we did not get it?
The problem there, is that you keep on bringing up censorship, as if anyone here criticizing O'Reilly was advocating that.
Quote:
What do you want to have happen to O'Reilly if not censorship?
I already said what I wanted. Just for him to own up to his vicious diatribe and false accusations and hounding. An apology.
Quote:
If anyone is going to sort O'Reilly out by saying he is not supposed to say this that or the other and it is improper and abusing his rights to say this that or the other, it will be censorship whether you want it to be or not.
Wrong. I never said he was "not supposed to say this that or the other". He has every right to say what he wants, and I support that right. But you are acting like these rights come with no responsibility, when they do.

Roeder had close ties to Operation Rescue, which in turn, worked closely with O'Reilly's crew on at least one occasion for the purpose of hounding Tiller(and on other occasions to organize protests). It is highly likely that the influences of O'Reilley, Operation Rescue, etc. played a part in Roeder's decision to kill Tiller.
ocalhoun
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
The problem there, is that you keep on bringing up censorship, as if anyone here criticizing O'Reilly was advocating that.

Hm...
handfleisch wrote:
That does not mean we as a people would have it on the national airwaves. (Some of it probably is on some local radio broadcasts and cable access channels, and so be it under the US system of free speech.)

Sure sounds like censoring it off of national 'airwaves' to me.

@handfleisch: the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press are given in the same sentence. Since there was no such thing as 'airwaves' at the time, I'm assuming 'press' would include what we today call 'media'.

There are only two entities which should be deciding if O'Reilly can say things like this on a nationally viewed platform:
1: His own conscience.
2: The producers of the program (and they should be mostly concerned with ratings produced, not with moral censorship).

ANY other interference threatens the long-term viability of all our freedoms.
Solon_Poledourus
ocalhoun wrote:
I wrote:
The problem there, is that you keep on bringing up censorship, as if anyone here criticizing O'Reilly was advocating that.


Hm...
Well, I am certainly not advocating censorship. I am simply advocating more responsibility in journalism.

Just as a hypothetical:
There are almost 60,000 members on this forum. Let's say that some of us went on a campaign and started accusing O'Reilly of being directly responsible of getting Tiller killed. There are people on here who, long before that campaign, hated O'Reilly anyway. Then a member goes and shoots O'Reilly. Wouldn't it make sense for those of us who participated in that slander to make some sort of amends for what we said?

I know that we have the right to slander Bill all we want, but just because we can does not mean we shouldn't own up to the responsibility and the weight of what we say.
handfleisch
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
Well, I am certainly not advocating censorship. I am simply advocating more responsibility in journalism.

Just as a hypothetical:
There are almost 60,000 members on this forum. Let's say that some of us went on a campaign and started accusing O'Reilly of being directly responsible of getting Tiller killed. There are people on here who, long before that campaign, hated O'Reilly anyway. Then a member goes and shoots O'Reilly. Wouldn't it make sense for those of us who participated in that slander to make some sort of amends for what we said?

I know that we have the right to slander Bill all we want, but just because we can does not mean we shouldn't own up to the responsibility and the weight of what we say.


I concur. Well put
ocalhoun
Solon_Poledourus wrote:

Just as a hypothetical:
There are almost 60,000 members on this forum. Let's say that some of us went on a campaign and started accusing O'Reilly of being directly responsible of getting Tiller killed. There are people on here who, long before that campaign, hated O'Reilly anyway. Then a member goes and shoots O'Reilly. Wouldn't it make sense for those of us who participated in that slander to make some sort of amends for what we said?

Make amends, perhaps, if the person feels that it is needed, but it should not be forced.

And certainly that person should not thereafter be silent in fear of inciting violence from people who are already prone to it.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I don't understand. I thought you have been trying to let us know that he has been responsible for influencing Roeder to kill Tiller? He should not have said what he have said? Isn't that censoring?
Yet again, I never said he was solely responsible. Just that he was an influence. And yet again, I never said he should be censored. What did I say? I said he should "man up" and take responsibility for contributing to an atmosphere which promoted the vicious hounding of an innocent man, who ended up getting killed. My exact words were "an apology would be nice".

That would be interesting. For that to happen he would have to say that he has been responsible, right? And then the estate of Dr. Tiller can sue him to death? Besides which perhaps he does not think that he is responsible. His perception may be different from yours. He does not appear to be a very nice person and someone that any reasonable person would really dislike very much, but perhaps he has the freedom to say what he said? To disallow what he said would mean censorship. To ask him to apologize would also be censorship. But I get it that you mean it should come spontaneously from him. I can't see that happening from his kind of person. Nor from the reality point of view that he and his station would most likely be sued as a consequence.
Moonspider
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
I wrote:
The problem there, is that you keep on bringing up censorship, as if anyone here criticizing O'Reilly was advocating that.


Hm...
Well, I am certainly not advocating censorship. I am simply advocating more responsibility in journalism.

Just as a hypothetical:
There are almost 60,000 members on this forum. Let's say that some of us went on a campaign and started accusing O'Reilly of being directly responsible of getting Tiller killed. There are people on here who, long before that campaign, hated O'Reilly anyway. Then a member goes and shoots O'Reilly. Wouldn't it make sense for those of us who participated in that slander to make some sort of amends for what we said?

I know that we have the right to slander Bill all we want, but just because we can does not mean we shouldn't own up to the responsibility and the weight of what we say.


I have to disagree.

Using your example, if I accuse O'Reilly of being directly responsible for Tiller's murder, I believe this to be the truth based upon the evidence. For me to state it and defend it in my mind is no different than stating a geometry theorem and defending it. I'm not calling for O'Reilly's death. I'm not hoping he dies. I'm not even making any statements like, "I wish O'Reilly would just go away."

I'm just stating what I believe to be truth as supported by the evidence. "O'Reilly directly contributed to and is directly responsible for Tiller's murder."

"A squared plus B squared equals C squared.."

Now, if someone decides this truth warrants O'Reilly's murder and then shoots him to death, then I bear no responsibility whatsoever, feel no guilt whatsoever, and feel no obligation to apologize. I would condemn the murder, of course. But the murder does not change what I believe to be truth. What was true before the murder is still true after the murder. How can I be even remotely responsible for O'Reilly's murder if I simply spoke what I believed to be factual truth?

Respectfully,
M
deanhills
Well said Moonspider as per usual. I like the mathematical equation as well, but the logic is quite simple and well thought through.
Solon_Poledourus
ocalhoun wrote:
Make amends, perhaps, if the person feels that it is needed, but it should not be forced.
Definately not forced, and he shouldn't feel the need to silence himself either.
Moonspider wrote:
Using your example, if I accuse O'Reilly of being directly responsible for Tiller's murder, I believe this to be the truth based upon the evidence.
Except that Bill didn't just state what he believed to be true about Tiller based on facts. He never stated anything about Tiller as simply as "A squared plus B squared equals C squared". He called him a mass murderer on par with Stalin, which is a false accusation. He accused Tiller of covering up for rapists, another false accusation. None of those things are factual, they were only said for the sole purpose of enraging his audience, of which Roeder was most assuredly a member. In my example, the crusade against O'Reilly would include similar falsehoods, which enrages someone on this board to the point of using them for justification in killing him.

O'Reilly shouldn't feel bad about his stance on abortion. He shouldn't regret helping Operation Rescue organize protests at Tiller's offices. And he most surely should not be forcibly silenced. But he should feel bad about calling Tiller a mass murderer, accusing him of covering up for child rapists, and all the other lies he spread. Those lies may have been part of Roeder's justification in killing Tiller, and that is where I feel O'Reilly went too far, and should apologize.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Make amends, perhaps, if the person feels that it is needed, but it should not be forced.
Definately not forced, and he shouldn't feel the need to silence himself either.
Moonspider wrote:
Using your example, if I accuse O'Reilly of being directly responsible for Tiller's murder, I believe this to be the truth based upon the evidence.
Except that Bill didn't just state what he believed to be true about Tiller based on facts. He never stated anything about Tiller as simply as "A squared plus B squared equals C squared". He called him a mass murderer on par with Stalin, which is a false accusation. He accused Tiller of covering up for rapists, another false accusation. None of those things are factual, they were only said for the sole purpose of enraging his audience, of which Roeder was most assuredly a member. In my example, the crusade against O'Reilly would include similar falsehoods, which enrages someone on this board to the point of using them for justification in killing him.

O'Reilly shouldn't feel bad about his stance on abortion. He shouldn't regret helping Operation Rescue organize protests at Tiller's offices. And he most surely should not be forcibly silenced. But he should feel bad about calling Tiller a mass murderer, accusing him of covering up for child rapists, and all the other lies he spread. Those lies may have been part of Roeder's justification in killing Tiller, and that is where I feel O'Reilly went too far, and should apologize.
Well if that is the case what about the anti-abortion groups? How do you class their actions, as they are just as influential in calling Tiller and all other doctors in Tiller's class as mass murderers, worse in fact.
Solon_Poledourus
deanhills wrote:
Well if that is the case what about the anti-abortion groups? How do you class their actions, as they are just as influential in calling Tiller and all other doctors in Tiller's class as mass murderers, worse in fact.
Unfortunately, Bill O'Reilly has been used as the example to save time from having to list all the other groups and individuals who are just as influential. But yes, the anti-abortion groups who slandered Tiller should be just as ashamed as O'Reilly. Protesting is one thing, and voicing your views and opinions are one thing, but spreading lies for the sake of making people angry is very dangerous territory when you are dealing with something as controversial as abortion.

People should know full well the potential for sudden and explosive violence where this issue is raised. It's bad enough that the protesters of abortion and the clinics and doctors who perform it, are drawing on peoples emotions and evoking emotionally charged responses. And that is just when they are voicing their opinions. When lies and false accusations come into play, there comes a danger of going too far and people getting hurt. Anti-abortion protesters already don't like the doctors who perform this task, and are on occasion very belligerent about expressing this. So when you have groups like Operation Rescue, and individuals like Bill O'Reilly, who spread lies and false accusations and slander for the sole purpose of evoking anger and rage fueled responses from their audiences, the eventual outcome will invariably involve someone getting hurt, and in some cases getting killed.

The shame of this is that O'Reilly immediately stepped back and refused to recognize the role he played in the matter. He slandered a man with lies, on purpose, just to make his audience angry for the purpose of boosting his own ratings, without regard for the potential danger he was helping to create.

My request for a public apology on his part is is a modest request, and far from censorship.
handfleisch
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Well if that is the case what about the anti-abortion groups? How do you class their actions, as they are just as influential in calling Tiller and all other doctors in Tiller's class as mass murderers, worse in fact.
Unfortunately, Bill O'Reilly has been used as the example to save time from having to list all the other groups and individuals who are just as influential. But yes, the anti-abortion groups who slandered Tiller should be just as ashamed as O'Reilly. Protesting is one thing, and voicing your views and opinions are one thing, but spreading lies for the sake of making people angry is very dangerous territory when you are dealing with something as controversial as abortion. ...


But O'Reilly and Fox News is in a much different position than the anti-abortion groups. O'Reilly has a massive public presence, part of a huge media machine that has an incalculable influence on US society. He also gives the appearance of legitimacy to the extremist groups when lies and inflames in the ways you have pointed out. In these ways he has a lot more power (which he abuses) and responsibility (which he denies) than the groups do.
Solon_Poledourus
handfleisch wrote:
But O'Reilly and Fox News is in a much different position than the anti-abortion groups. O'Reilly has a massive public presence, part of a huge media machine that has an incalculable influence on US society. He also gives the appearance of legitimacy to the extremist groups when lies and inflames in the ways you have pointed out. In these ways he has a lot more power (which he abuses) and responsibility (which he denies) than the groups do.
This is probably the most important part, which I failed to point out. Because he is part of such a huge media machine, lies and false accusations seem credible to many people in his audience.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Well if that is the case what about the anti-abortion groups? How do you class their actions, as they are just as influential in calling Tiller and all other doctors in Tiller's class as mass murderers, worse in fact.
Unfortunately, Bill O'Reilly has been used as the example to save time from having to list all the other groups and individuals who are just as influential. But yes, the anti-abortion groups who slandered Tiller should be just as ashamed as O'Reilly. Protesting is one thing, and voicing your views and opinions are one thing, but spreading lies for the sake of making people angry is very dangerous territory when you are dealing with something as controversial as abortion. ...


But O'Reilly and Fox News is in a much different position than the anti-abortion groups. O'Reilly has a massive public presence, part of a huge media machine that has an incalculable influence on US society. He also gives the appearance of legitimacy to the extremist groups when lies and inflames in the ways you have pointed out. In these ways he has a lot more power (which he abuses) and responsibility (which he denies) than the groups do.
Good point. It was a great coincidence but I saw a Boston Legal TV Episode taking a News Station to court for this exact same issue. Alan Shore obviously was the one who presented the case, as well as won it (he always wins of course). He accussed all the news stations of following political agendas and not having the news reported objectively and unbiased as it were in the old days. So if Fox News should be sorted out for toeing a certain political line, maybe all the news stations should be similarly censored? Or in Solon's case, all media have to apologize when it appears they have been responsible for provoking people into particular criminal acts ... and that of course include the rightwingers' actions lately as a result of all kinds of news reporting?

In addition, I have just noted that Obama is trying to put a health bill through, so the latest story that came "via Obama" is also trying to provoke/influence. Perhaps he should apologize for lobbying citizens via the media without telling them upfront what his real objective is - which is to get votes for his Health Bill?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090616/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_doctors
Bannik
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Well if that is the case what about the anti-abortion groups? How do you class their actions, as they are just as influential in calling Tiller and all other doctors in Tiller's class as mass murderers, worse in fact.
Unfortunately, Bill O'Reilly has been used as the example to save time from having to list all the other groups and individuals who are just as influential. But yes, the anti-abortion groups who slandered Tiller should be just as ashamed as O'Reilly. Protesting is one thing, and voicing your views and opinions are one thing, but spreading lies for the sake of making people angry is very dangerous territory when you are dealing with something as controversial as abortion. ...


But O'Reilly and Fox News is in a much different position than the anti-abortion groups. O'Reilly has a massive public presence, part of a huge media machine that has an incalculable influence on US society. He also gives the appearance of legitimacy to the extremist groups when lies and inflames in the ways you have pointed out. In these ways he has a lot more power (which he abuses) and responsibility (which he denies) than the groups do.
Good point. It was a great coincidence but I saw a Boston Legal TV Episode taking a News Station to court for this exact same issue. Alan Shore obviously was the one who presented the case, as well as won it (he always wins of course). He accussed all the news stations of following political agendas and not having the news reported objectively and unbiased as it were in the old days. So if Fox News should be sorted out for toeing a certain political line, maybe all the news stations should be similarly censored? Or in Solon's case, all media have to apologize when it appears they have been responsible for provoking people into particular criminal acts ... and that of course include the rightwingers' actions lately as a result of all kinds of news reporting?

In addition, I have just noted that Obama is trying to put a health bill through, so the latest story that came "via Obama" is also trying to provoke/influence. Perhaps he should apologize for lobbying citizens via the media without telling them upfront what his real objective is - which is to get votes for his Health Bill?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090616/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_doctors


damn obama the sneaky muslim communist spy...he ruined USA, I liked it like it was in the old days, Usa had the balls too say "frag off Korea you aint shoting anything anytime soon, KAPISH!!" now they seem like total girls....

and the media have ALWAYS done this, you really think the old days were better? anyone herd of bribing? the news will post anything that sells, if violence, hate and racism have a demographic it will be used and will be abused....its business...if you are going too blame anyone blame the public for taking in all this bullshit, EVERYONE is capable of understanding EVERYTHING you just have too explain it in the right way...

I blame the education system....it screws up your childhood mental development so you only think in a square box(as they say)...fix education so the future generations can deal with this crap better then we can.
Bikerman
Bannik wrote:
EVERYONE is capable of understanding EVERYTHING you just have too explain it in the right way...
No, 'fraid not. Do you think you are capable of understanding M-Theory? I don't. My maths is OK, but I couldn't explain M-theory to you because I don't fully understand it myself and it would take YEARS of maths before I had any chance to (and I'm not fully convinced that I am even capable of grasping the necessary maths).
Take a simpler example - do you understand the basic laws of motion (Newton)? Could you calculate a ballistics question if I set one?
The truth is that most people don't understand most things - this includes teachers, lecturers, scientists etc. What we have are simplified 'models' in our heads which are not 'right' but will do for most purposes.
Now, the examples I used are really quite simple - in that they have a 'right' answer. Affairs involving humans are much more complex and there is rarely a 'right' answer.
Quote:
I blame the education system....it screws up your childhood mental development so you only think in a square box(as they say)...fix education so the future generations can deal with this crap better then we can.
LOL - everyone blames us for the evils of the world. I agree that education is vitally important (that is one major reason why I 'do it') but expecting the system to produce understanding of everything in everyone is a tad ambitious....
Actually I am sympathetic to the basic point - I have long advocated the teaching of a basic course to all students. I would call the course 'Life Skills' and it would include areas such as
  • How to interpret statistics and spot misleading usage of such
  • How to read an article or presentation critically
  • Basic logical fallacies and how they are used
  • Basic principles of the scientific method
No doubt there are many other areas that could be included, but this would be a good start and would equip students to filter information from noise, propoganda or downright lies.
Solon_Poledourus
The old days of honest journalism?
It never happened... (anyone remember the Regan administration feeding stories to the press about how the Sandanistas got chemical weapons from the USSR and had the ability to attack Texas and DC? This lie created the Iran/Contra debacle) The media has been working for government interests since their conception.

I don't think anyone in the media should be forced to apologize for goading people into anger or even violent reactions. People should just do more research on subjects and think for themselves, rather than letting the news media decide how they should feel about something. Media figures should be ashamed of themselves for spreading lies and using their multi-billion dollar budgets to sell fear and anger. They should apologize out of conscience, but that will never happen.
Bannik
Bikerman wrote:
No, 'fraid not. Do you think you are capable of understanding M-Theory? I don't. My maths is OK, but I couldn't explain M-theory to you because I don't fully understand it myself and it would take YEARS of maths before I had any chance to (and I'm not fully convinced that I am even capable of grasping the necessary maths).
Take a simpler example - do you understand the basic laws of motion (Newton)? Could you calculate a ballistics question if I set one?


Do i need too calculate it too understand it....if someone came up too me and told me

Newton's laws of motion are three physical laws that form the basis for classical mechanics. They are:

1. A body at rest stays at rest, and a body in motion stays in motion, unless it is acted on by an external force.

2. Force equals mass times acceleration (F = ma) (or alternately, force equals the time rate of change of momentum).

3. To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

I undestand that...i wont do any maths but i understand what it is talking about......its simple.......you dont need too know how too calculate it...as long as you understand it and it makes sense it should be cool in my books

[MOD - posting tidied up to make it more readable - Bikerman]
deanhills
Bannik wrote:
I liked it like it was in the old days, Usa had the balls too say "frag off Korea you aint shoting anything anytime soon, KAPISH!!" now they seem like total girls....
Hillary Clinton was also quite tough in the beginning when Obama still allowed her to be a proper Secretary of State. She sent very clear messages to China and North Korea when she was on her World Tour just after she was annointed Secretary of State, and then maybe Obama decided to muzzle her and push her into the background. Think that was a mistake, as she is stronger in international politics than he is. At least she is not as "gushing" as he is when she is talking to dignatories, maybe she is more used to them than he is, also perhaps more evenly keeled and poker faced.
Bikerman
Bannik wrote:
Do i need too calculate it too understand it....if someone came up too me and told me

Newton's laws of motion are three physical laws that form the basis for classical mechanics. They are:

1. A body at rest stays at rest, and a body in motion stays in motion, unless it is acted on by an external force.

2. Force equals mass times acceleration (F = ma) (or alternately, force equals the time rate of change of momentum).

3. To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

I undestand that...i wont do any maths but i understand what it is talking about......its simple.......you dont need too know how too calculate it...as long as you understand it and it makes sense it should be cool in my books
No - you THINK you understand. The result is even worse than knowing you don't. When you come to apply these laws to the real world then your understanding is tested.Newton's laws seem simple, but only when you have not actually understood them properly and don't have to atually use them. They are actually very profound.
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
Bannik wrote:
Do i need too calculate it too understand it....if someone came up too me and told me

Newton's laws of motion are three physical laws that form the basis for classical mechanics. They are:

1. A body at rest stays at rest, and a body in motion stays in motion, unless it is acted on by an external force.

2. Force equals mass times acceleration (F = ma) (or alternately, force equals the time rate of change of momentum).

3. To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

I undestand that...i wont do any maths but i understand what it is talking about......its simple.......you dont need too know how too calculate it...as long as you understand it and it makes sense it should be cool in my books
No - you THINK you understand. The result is even worse than knowing you don't. When you come to apply these laws to the real world then your understanding is tested.Newton's laws seem simple, but only when you have not actually understood them properly and don't have to atually use them. They are actually very profound.

I'd disagree on this: you can understand things without knowing all the formulas and little details that make them work.
I understand how my truck's engine works, but I'm no mechanic, and I certainly wouldn't be able to design one.
For a more detailed part of that analogy, I understand the way compression ratio of the cylinders in an engine affect the engine, but that doesn't mean that I could determine the ideal compression ratio for a given engine.
handfleisch
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/06/the_oreilly_procedure.html

Roger Ebert discusses and bemoans the O'Reilly factor, the Tiller murder and TV journalism in general. I agree with most of it. To be honest, though I agree with his politics, I can't stand the shrillness of Obermann and have watched him exactly once.
Quote:

The O'Reilly Procedure
Bill O'Reilly has been brought low by the same process that afflicted Jerry Springer. Once respected journalists, they sold their souls for higher ratings, and follow their siren song. Springer is honest about it: "I'm going to Hell for what I do, and I know it," he's likes to say. O'Reilly insists he is dealing only with the truth. When his guests disagree with him, he shouts at them, calls them liars, talks over them, and behaves like a schoolyard bully.

I am not interested in discussing O'Reilly's politics here. That would open a hornet's nest. I am more concerned about the danger he and others like him represent to a civil and peaceful society. He sets a harmful example of acceptable public behavior. He has been an influence on the most worrying trend in the field of news: The polarization of opinion, the elevation of emotional temperature, the predictability of two of the leading cable news channels. A majority of cable news viewers now get their news slanted one way or the other by angry men. O'Reilly is not the worst offender. That would be Glenn Beck. Keith Olbermann is gaining ground. Rachel Maddow provides an admirable example for the boys of firm, passionate outrage, and is more effective for nogt shouting.

Much has been said recently about the possible influence of O'Reilly on the murder of Dr. George Tiller by Scott Roeder. Such a connection is impossible to prove. Yet studies of bullies and their victims suggest a general way such an influence might take place. Bullies like to force others to do their will, while they can stand back and protest their innocence: "I was nowhere near the gymnasium, Sister!" A recent study of school shootings found that two-thirds of all the shooters were victims of bullying, and perceived themselves as members of persecuted minorities.
...
Sometimes O'Reilly is compared with Father Coughlin, a popular far-right radio commentator in the 1930s who fanned the flames against Roosevelt and warned about immigration and "foreigners," by which it was understood he meant primarily Jews. O'Reilly objects to such a comparison, and certainly there is no reason to consider him anti-Semitic.

But a team of media researchers at Indiana University studied every editorial broadcast by O'Reilly during a six-month period and found a similar nativist cast.
handfleisch
Latest news on the subject of rightwing talkshow hosts encouraging and advocating hate and violence.

http://chicago.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel09/cg062409.htm

Quote:
CHICAGO—Hal Turner, an intermittent internet radio talk show host and blogger, was arrested today by FBI agents at his home in North Bergen, N.J., on a federal complaint filed in Chicago alleging that he made internet postings threatening to assault and murder three federal appeals court judges in Chicago in retaliation for their recent ruling upholding handgun bans in Chicago and a suburb.

Internet postings on June 2 and 3 proclaimed “outrage” over the June 2, 2009, handgun decision by Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook and Judges Richard Posner and William Bauer, of the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, further stating, among other things: “Let me be the first to say this plainly: These Judges deserve to be killed.” The postings included photographs, phone numbers, work address and room numbers of these judges, along with a photo of the building in which they work and a map of its location.


And now the infamous Michael Savage. In the context of the recent murders and all the half-cocked listeners in radioland, this is inexcusable. I wonder if Media Matters staff are getting bodyguards or contacting authorities about some sort of physical protection.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200906240009

Quote:
Savage vows to post "full pictures and other pertinent information about" Media Matters employees on his website

He urges "all people in the media who have been harassed by this Stalinist group, Media Matters" to do the same
deanhills
Looks as though one has to be careful with postings on the Internet. Wonder what defence the lawyers will take on this?
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
Latest news on the subject of rightwing talkshow hosts encouraging and advocating hate and violence.

http://chicago.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel09/cg062409.htm

Quote:
CHICAGO—Hal Turner, an intermittent internet radio talk show host and blogger, was arrested today by FBI agents at his home in North Bergen, N.J., on a federal complaint filed in Chicago alleging that he made internet postings threatening to assault and murder three federal appeals court judges in Chicago in retaliation for their recent ruling upholding handgun bans in Chicago and a suburb.

Internet postings on June 2 and 3 proclaimed “outrage” over the June 2, 2009, handgun decision by Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook and Judges Richard Posner and William Bauer, of the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, further stating, among other things: “Let me be the first to say this plainly: These Judges deserve to be killed.” The postings included photographs, phone numbers, work address and room numbers of these judges, along with a photo of the building in which they work and a map of its location.


Those judges don't deserve to be killed... They DO deserve to be fired.
A complete ban is blatantly unconstitutional.
handfleisch
Turns out the guy is a white supremacist, the like Holocaust Museum shooter was. How big is this movement toward domestic terrorism by the right wing going to get?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/us/25threat.html?ref=us

Quote:
Radio Host Is Arrested in Threats on 3 Judges

WASHINGTON — An Internet radio host known for his incendiary views was arrested Wednesday in North Bergen, N.J., after federal officials charged that his angry postings about a gun case in Chicago amounted to death threats against three judges.

In a case that tests the limits of free speech, the Justice Department charged that the radio host, Hal Turner, had crossed the line into hate speech.

Mr. Turner, regarded by civil rights monitoring groups as a white supremacist, an anti-Semite and a “maestro of radio hate,” posted commentaries on his blog denouncing a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, that upheld two local bans on handguns.


By the way, he is also reportedly a big pal of Fox News host Hannity.
deanhills
What has happened to the law that says that someone is innocent until proven guilty? With this kind of comment going on, how can there be an objective hearing?
Related topics
CNN even knows Fox Rox!
O'Reilly's book on Asterisk, of the 2005, in free unloading
The Left Wing Blues
Liberal bias: Iraq's Unreported Historical Event
O'Reilly Open Books Project
the vi editor of unix
Kyoto?? Bah! China Blows by USA in CO2 Emissions.
Windows Vista Memory
Stop it!
barack obama, friend or foe?
Tenn. church killer 'hated liberals' was Savage, Hannity fan
Tea Party Protests
Right Wing Terrorism out of control and on the increase?
Things only a Republican could believe
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.