• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:153/170/200]

re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

Since when is Bill O'Reilly against captialism?

The blatant comments by Bill O'Reilly saying that Al-Jazeera is anti-American are ridiulous. Al Gore did not do anything wrong and no matter how biased (and apparantly racist) Bill O'Reilly's comments are it does not make them true.

Well, you're forgetting the cardinal rule of punditry. If the other guys do it, it's bad. Doesn't matter what it is. Bush invading Iraq was good. Obama expressing an opinion about Libya was bad.

So liberals engaging in free enterprise is evil. Even though free enterprise is good.
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

There's nothing to get confused.

That's the same sort of thinking that equates disagreeing with certain policies of the Israeli government with anti-semitism.
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

That's the same sort of thinking that equates disagreeing with certain policies of the Israeli government with anti-semitism.

ummm, no. Me saying that there's nothing to get confused because I already clearly stated my position has nothing to do with that :confused:
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

If you believe that then YOU are confused.

I've been saying throughout this thread that they have in the past had a lot of anti-american sentiments...that shouldn't be confusing.

I also wouldn't completely separate the US government from America, we elect our representatives and our commander in chief.
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

ummm, no. Me saying that there's nothing to get confused because I already clearly stated my position has nothing to do with that :confused:

Well I haven't read the entire thread so you very well may have addressed this question already: But do you believe criticizing or disliking a country's government is the same thing as criticizing or disliking the people?
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

I've been saying throughout this thread that they have in the past had a lot of anti-american sentiments...that shouldn't be confusing.

I also wouldn't completely separate the US government from America, we elect our representatives and our commander in chief.

So if you criticize a president you are criticizing the people?
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

So if you criticize a president you are criticizing the people?

If you praise the man behind the deaths of thousands of american citizens and give him preferential treatment than I would call you anti-american.
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

If you praise the man behind the deaths of thousands of american citizens and give him preferential treatment than I would call you anti-american.

Is praising him (which AJ never did, btw) worse than funneling billions of US tax dollars to him? Ronnie Reagan did that.
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

Is praising him (which AJ never did, btw) worse than funneling billions of US tax dollars to him? Ronnie Reagan did that.

You guys keep trying to change the subject...start a new one if you want to talk about Ronald Reagan or all the shady people/governments the US gave money to in the past.
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

You guys keep trying to change the subject...start a new one if you want to talk about Ronald Reagan or all the shady people/governments the US gave money to in the past.

It isn't really a change of subject. You raised one particular individual as an example of AJ's anti-American bend, which bend you were using to justify your opinion of Al Gore doing business with them. It's a perfectly legitimate extension of the subject under discussion to talk about who else was associated with him.
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

It isn't really a change of subject. You raised one particular individual as an example of AJ's anti-American bend, which bend you were using to justify your opinion of Al Gore doing business with them. It's a perfectly legitimate extension of the subject under discussion to talk about who else was associated with him.

You really think talking about whether or not AJ has a strong anti-american anti-israeli bias has something to do with Ronald reagan and whether US tax dollars ever funded people we later found detestable?

It seemed more like a red herring to me...
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

You really think talking about whether or not AJ has a strong anti-american anti-israeli bias has something to do with Ronald reagan and whether US tax dollars ever funded people we later found detestable?

It seemed more like a red herring to me...

Red herring or not, you brought the man up.
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

Red herring or not, you brought the man up.

Sure, in reference to a completely separate topic and in a completely different way.

Maybe we should go on and talk about the shoes that the man wore and human rights involving little kids in factories working on shoes. A bit exaggerated but hopefully you get the point. That's what a red herring does and why it's a logical fallacy, it tries to make itself relevant in some small way when really it isn't.
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

It was a wise move to try and sell before tax rates went up. Any rational person is going to want to minimize their tax burden and maximize profit. What would make him a sleazy hypocrite is if Al Gore or Democrats that are all about taxing the rich and corporations see nothing wrong with what was done yet still advocate for their tax increases.
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

Some people who own homes bordering on wildlife areas often see wild deer on their own property.

Everyone has a soft spot in their hearts for Bambi and deer in general and so they consider the presence of deer a good thing and even a special event.

But those with a long history of deer interactions and those with the education to understand the possibnle negative impact of close contact with deer are the ones whose opinions and warnings about deer should be listened to carefully.

Deer trample and eat flowers and vegetables in backyards and gardens. And deer carry ticks and other parasites that can be deadly to humans.

So, even though deer are beautiful animals they can be harmful to our health.

You may not recognize the potential danger of letting Al Jazeera gain greater acceptance in America just like the average homeowner might not be aware of the poitential dangers of allowing wild deer to come onto their land and get close to pets and people.

But the danger is there whether you recognize it or not.

I don't see any real danger.
Sorry. :shrug:
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

Now tell me if AJE wanted to push radical Islam would they make stuff like this:
[video=youtube;U0Xn60Zw03A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0Xn60Zw03A[/video
or
[video=youtube;W4OhTWpHpHI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4OhTWpHpHI[/video
or
[video=youtube;znMYDsbkwRw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znMYDsbkwRw[/vide]

There are some very simple explanations for it.

1. Islam is not monolithic. There are some GREAT Muslims. Some who I would be proud to call my friend. Some I'd welcome into my own family by marriage. Some who are great, loyal, trustworthy, patriotic, noble, hard-working, devoutly religious Americans. But who is hiding behind their thobe? Who takes advantage of the trust engendered by the great Muslims? When considering these vids I am inclined to believe they represent the best and sincerest intentions of good, decent people. But does that mean I should blindly accept Islam into my society only to, predictably, have to eventually deal with the problems Islam poses to my own society? An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.


2. Anyone who has ever met a girl's father before taking her out on a date and screwing her brains out later knows that you put your best foot forward in order to gain acceptance. Once you have gained acceptance only then can you execute your plan to defile the man's daughter. Or, more innocently, those who are old enough to remember the "Leave it to Beaver" TV show, think about Eddie Haskell. We all knew he was up to no good despite the innocent act he put on when around the Cleaver parents. And Ward & June both knew Eddie was sneaky but there wasn't all that much he could do to get Wally and Beaver in trouble, partly because Wally was very aware that Eddie was a 'character.' As this pertains to the vids, AJ wants to win our acceptance and once they do who in their wake will try to fulfill the Koran's instructions to try to bring the Great Satan (America) down? The good Muslims at AJ can't be held responsible for what Jihadists do. Just like you can't be responsibnle for the bad things your neighbor does. But, nonetheless,the Good Muslims will effectively 'open the door' so that whatever the Bad Muslims do thereafter won't be blamed on them. Or, the 'Eddie Haskell' Muslims are just BS'ing us into accepting them into our society and once they are accepted they will screw us all as much as they can. All for the greater glory of Allah.
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

If you praise the man behind the deaths of thousands of american citizens and give him preferential treatment than I would call you anti-american.

where did AJ ever praise OBL?
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

I don't see any real danger.
Sorry. :shrug:

Some people blithely and blindly walk through dark alleys at night without giving any thought to the possibility of danger in that alley.

While i am sorry you lack the ability to recognize the dangers of an increased level of Islamic presence in our society I expect you will refrain from arguing there is no danger from it.

A responsible person would not aggressively recommend that people walk down dark alleys at night, would he?
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

Some people blithely and blindly walk through dark alleys at night without giving any thought to the possibility of danger in that alley.

While i am sorry you lack the ability to recognize the dangers of an increased level of Islamic presence in our society I expect you will refrain from arguing there is no danger from it.

A responsible person would not aggressively recommend that people walk down dark alleys at night, would he?

Those two situations are clearly not the same.
Al Jazeera is owned by our ally, it just doesn't matter.
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

That's the same sort of thinking that equates disagreeing with certain policies of the Israeli government with anti-semitism.

But, you would readily admit many anti-Semites (bigots) cloak their bigotry with the cry that they were just criticizing the Israeli policies, yes?
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

There are some very simple explanations for it.

1. Islam is not monolithic. There are some GREAT Muslims. Some who I would be proud to call my friend. Some I'd welcome into my own family by marriage. Some who are great, loyal, trustworthy, patriotic, noble, hard-working, devoutly religious Americans. But who is hiding behind their thobe? Who takes advantage of the trust engendered by the great Muslims? When considering these vids I am inclined to believe they represent the best and sincerest intentions of good, decent people. But does that mean I should blindly accept Islam into my society only to, predictably, have to eventually deal with the problems Islam poses to my own society? An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.


2. Anyone who has ever met a girl's father before taking her out on a date and screwing her brains out later knows that you put your best foot forward in order to gain acceptance. Once you have gained acceptance only then can you execute your plan to defile the man's daughter. Or, more innocently, those who are old enough to remember the "Leave it to Beaver" TV show, think about Eddie Haskell. We all knew he was up to no good despite the innocent act he put on when around the Cleaver parents. And Ward & June both knew Eddie was sneaky but there wasn't all that much he could do to get Wally and Beaver in trouble, partly because Wally was very aware that Eddie was a 'character.' As this pertains to the vids, AJ wants to win our acceptance and once they do who in their wake will try to fulfill the Koran's instructions to try to bring the Great Satan (America) down? The good Muslims at AJ can't be held responsible for what Jihadists do. Just like you can't be responsibnle for the bad things your neighbor does. But, nonetheless,the Good Muslims will effectively 'open the door' so that whatever the Bad Muslims do thereafter won't be blamed on them. Or, the 'Eddie Haskell' Muslims are just BS'ing us into accepting them into our society and once they are accepted they will screw us all as much as they can. All for the greater glory of Allah.

So mostly Christian staff are going to help Islam spread? I don't know how Christians spread Islam. Since is the standard they have set out, this is the standard they have to come to be known for, if they abandon it no one will watch them. Most Muslims are good people but like Christians there are those that take it to extremes.
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

Those two situations are clearly not the same.
Al Jazeera is owned by our ally, it just doesn't matter.

You have seen what can happen when the U.S. tries to deal with Islamic governments with the belief that by simply establishing a working arrangement with the government that the government can and will keep bthe citizens in line.

At Tora Bora despite having a good relationship with the Afghan government, when U.S. forces gave the Afghan military the honor of capturing/killing OBL the troops on the scene, the majority of them probably fundamentalists themselves, allowed OBL to escape.

Almost ten years later, when Pres. Obama had the chance to nail OBL, once and for all, he had learned his lesson. Despite calling Pakistan our ally he refused to share pre-knowledge of Operation Geronimo with the Pakistanis.

Certainly President Obama's lesson isn't lost on you.

Just because Qutar is our ally doesn't mean that we don't have anything to worry about in terms of an increase in long term islamic presence in America.

You do recognize the prime Islamic directive, don't you?
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

If you praise the man behind the deaths of thousands of american citizens and give him preferential treatment than I would call you anti-american.

That is not what I'm referring to. I asked, does criticizing a president (or anyone in government) = criticizing the people?
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

So mostly Christian staff are going to help Islam spread? I don't know how Christians spread Islam. Since is the standard they have set out, this is the standard they have to come to be known for, if they abandon it no one will watch them. Most Muslims are good people but like Christians there are those that take it to extremes.

One of the ways Al Jazeera's presence in American society can further the goal of eventual global domination is by lulling Americans into a false sense of security. If the AJE staff was ALL Christian (if that was even able to be achieved) all that AJE would have to do is to regularly present a positive image of Muslims so that Americans who are currently nervous about Muslims could become mostly neutral about Muslims and Islam.

Once Americans begin to reach that important benchmark the next phase if the campaign can commence.

And, like I said before in this thread, "It matters not a whit that most Muslims are not radicals."

http://theredhunter.com/the_war_of_ideas_islamic_extremism_and_the_west/

Please read this or I'll have to keep posting it.

Many will object that "few people actually believe in radical Islam," and we heat things along the lines of "only 10 percent of Muslims are radicals/sympathetic to the radicals," and that "only a miniscule number of Americans/Westerners buy into radical Islam so the danger is overblown."

But history is not made by taking a vote at every important moment. Only 1/3 of the American colonists wanted independence from Great Britain in 1776. The Jacobins were a minority of Frenchmen in 1789, and the Bolsheviks a minority of Russians in 1917. The quota on imported sugar in America today is not there because it has the broad support of Americans but because of the political influence of a small minority of sugar growers in Louisiana. Less than half of Americans even vote in most elections, and the more local the election is the fewer people vote. History and outcomes are made by determined and well-organized minorities.

So it is with radical Islam. It matters not a whit that most Muslims are not radicals. If the average Muslim moderates are not willing to stand up and demand that Muslim Brotherhood influence be purged from Muslim organizations, then the radicals win, no matter how few their numbers. Consider the fate of Molly Norris, the Seattle cartoonist who organized the "Everybody Draw Mohammed" day in 2010 as a protest against censorship. After threats she canceled the contest and apologized. No matter, the threats continued until she has changed her name and gone into hiding on the advice of the FBI. There was and is no support from Muslim groups, or hardly anyone outside of a few conservatives, for that matter, for the concept of free speech.

The danger is rather a sort of "creeping sharia" whereby we suffer the death of a thousand cuts rather than the one by the guillotine. Muslim radicals aim to deceive us as to their true intention, which is to spread their sharia(or "shariah") into the West, replacing our values with their own. In short, their objective is to take us over peacefully over a long period of time, not militarily all at once.
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

One of the ways Al Jazeera's presence in American society can further the goal of eventual global domination is by lulling Americans into a false sense of security. If the AJE staff was ALL Christian (if that was even able to be achieved) all that AJE would have to do is to regularly present a positive image of Muslims so that Americans who are currently nervous about Muslims could become mostly neutral about Muslims and Islam.

Once Americans begin to reach that important benchmark the next phase if the campaign can commence.

And, like I said before in this thread, "It matters not a whit that most Muslims are not radicals."

The Redhunter: The War of Ideas: Islamic Extremism and the West Archives

Please read this or I'll have to keep posting it.

So do you subscribe to WND? Seems to be something they would pull. Is there no chance they could just be a news organization?
 
Back
Top Bottom