• 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]

I remember quite well all the propaganda and anti american printing al jazeera has done and their televison propaganda...in the beginning of the war they did nothing but try to damage the us effort.

Case in point right here. That wouldn't be anti-american propaganda, that is anti-US government propaganda.
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

Same holds true for other people on the other extreme of the political spectrum. That's what extremism is. What's your point?

I didn't know every nutbag on television was the subject of this particular discussion. I was under the impression we were talking about nutbag O'Reilly. If you'd like to start a thread about some other tv nutbags, I'd be happy to comment on them.
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

Anti-american or Anti-US Government? Many people get the two confused.

Your post reminds me of the kind of sentiment which I've slammed on these pages previously.

One which bizarrely confuses one's allies with one's adversaries.

In the matter of Al Jazeera establishing a foothold in America and the potential dangers of that, the American must not be at odds with the American government unless you wish the utimate deterioration of both.
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

Your post reminds me of the kind of sentiment which I've slammed on these pages previously.

One which bizarrely confuses one's allies with one's adversaries.

I see AJ as neither an ally nor an adversary.

In the matter of Al Jazeera establishing a foothold in America and the potential dangers of that, the American must not be at odds with the American government unless you wish the utimate deterioration of both.

Then you must see Fox News as anti-american because they constantly criticize our government.
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

I didn't know every nutbag on television was the subject of this particular discussion. I was under the impression we were talking about nutbag O'Reilly. If you'd like to start a thread about some other tv nutbags, I'd be happy to comment on them.
In other words, your "sky is blue on a clear day" blindingly obvious non-point is confirmed. Thank you.
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

In the matter of Al Jazeera establishing a foothold in America and the potential dangers of that, the American must not be at odds with the American government unless you wish the utimate deterioration of both.

That must be the most hypocritical statement I've read on this site in a long, long while.
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

Anti-american or Anti-US Government? Many people get the two confused.



If the positions taken are reflexive and automatically against anything Americsa does, they are anti-American. They can only be said to be anti-American goverment if the criticisms are pointed, the things the government does right are acknowledged and the nature of the different governments receive different response.

I'm reminded of the useful idiot portion of the hard left and its constant demonization of Israel. These children do nothing but spread hatred no matter the particular government, cannot say anything good about Israel if their life depended on it, make excuses for terrorism against Jews, and spread many antisemitic canards, but try the cop-out that they are only against Israeli government.

Intelligent people do not buy into these lies any more than intelligent poeple should buy into the notion that those who are ALWAYS anti-American are anything but anti-American.
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

Case in point right here. That wouldn't be anti-american propaganda, that is anti-US government propaganda.

Those of you who subscribe to this idea have to remember that the American GOVERNMENT exists by the people and for the people. It is not some alienated entity that exists apart from our most fundamental interests or without our active participation.

I suspect this point of view of yours comes drectly from the Middle East (it certainly DOES NOT apply to an American government) where governments routinely DO NOT reflect the will or the best interests or the active participation of the people.

Peddle your alienation campaign elsewhere. It won't work here.
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

If the positions taken are reflexive and automatically against anything Americsa does, they are anti-American. They can only be said to be anti-American goverment if the criticisms are pointed, the things the government does right are acknowledged and the nature of the different governments receive different response.

Sure, people can be anti-American AND anti-US government. But many posters will take criticism over US foreign policy as criticism towards Americans. That is not necessarily true.

As a libertarian, I believe most of the things our government does is wrong. Am I anti-American?

I'm reminded of the useful idiot portion of the hard left and its constant demonization of Israel. These children do nothing but spread hatred no matter the particular government, cannot say anything good about Israel if their life depended on it, make excuses for terrorism against Jews, and spread many antisemitic canards, but try the cop-out that they are only against Israeli government.

I criticize much of what Israel's government does. At the same time, I criticize Hamas and many of their terrorist actions. I don't speak on behalf of those who criticize one side and not the other.

Intelligent people do not buy into these lies any more than intelligent poeple should buy into the notion that those who are ALWAYS anti-American are anything but anti-American.

And intelligent people don't get suckered into nationalistic sentimentalism.
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

Intelligent people do not buy into these lies any more than intelligent poeple should buy into the notion that those who are ALWAYS anti-American are anything but anti-American.

Are you suggesting that Al Jazeera is always anti-American? I don't think even O'Reilly went that far. I guess he's a little too lefty for you.
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

Those of you who subscribe to this idea have to remember that the American GOVERNMENT exists by the people and for the people. It is not some alienated entity that exists apart from our most fundamental interests or without our active participation.

So I assume then you supported Obamacare?

I suspect this point of view of yours comes drectly from the Middle East (it certainly DOES NOT apply to an American government) where governments routinely DO NOT reflect the will or the best interests or the active participation of the people.

Governments, democratic or totalitarian, often take actions that the majority of the people do not support. You talk as if Americans are one entity, that we don't have our own individual interests. That is very collectivist thinking there for a "conservative."

Peddle your alienation campaign elsewhere. It won't work here.

Who am I trying to alienate?
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

I see AJ as neither an ally nor an adversary.



Then you must see Fox News as anti-american because they constantly criticize our government.

I get the impression you are not a born and raised American and you are trying to figure things out.

Let me help.

A widely quoted Bedouin saying is "I against my brother, my brothers and I against my cousins, then my cousins and I against strangers".

In this case you and your Liberal brothers are against your Conservative cousins and both you and your brothers and me and my Conservative brothers sometimes take issue with our Uncle Sam.

Al Jazeera would be the stranger in this analogy.

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

I get the impression you are not a born and raised American and you are trying to figure things out.

Let me help.

A widely quoted Bedouin saying is "I against my brother, my brothers and I against my cousins, then my cousins and I against strangers".

In this case you and your Liberal brothers are against your Conservative cousins and both you and your brothers and me and my Conservative brothers sometimes take issue with our Uncle Sam.

Al Jazeera would be the stranger in this analogy.

There. Got it?

That makes much more sense. Foreigners....BAAAAD!
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

I get the impression you are not a born and raised American and you are trying to figure things out.

Once again, you are wrong. Born and raised American. Love my country. Which is why I often dislike what my government is doing to it.


A widely quoted Bedouin saying is "I against my brother, my brothers and I against my cousins, then my cousins and I against strangers".

In this case you and your Liberal brothers are against your Conservative cousins and both you and your brothers and me and my Conservative brothers sometimes take issue with our Uncle Sam.

Al Jazeera would be the stranger in this analogy.

There. Got it?

Yeah I get it. More nationalistic bulls***
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

That must be the most hypocritical statement I've read on this site in a long, long while.

A widely quoted Bedouin saying is "I against my brother, my brothers and I against my cousins, then my cousins and I against strangers".
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

A widely quoted Bedouin saying is "I against my brother, my brothers and I against my cousins, then my cousins and I against strangers".

The day I read you praise the President I'll think again.
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

That makes much more sense. Foreigners....BAAAAD!

Incorrect.

THIS PASSAGE IS CRUCIAL TO UNDERSTANDING THE POTENTIAL DANGER OF ALLOWING AL JAZEERA INTO OUR CIVILIZATION.

The situation in the world today borders on the fantastic. Never before in history has one civilization allowed large numbers of those who come from an alien, and immutably hostile situation, to settle deep within that first civilization’s borders.

Never before have the members of one civilization failed to investigate, and even willfully refused to investigate, or to listen to those who warn about, the consequences for all non-Muslims of the belief-system of Islam.

In history, the phenomenon of the Barbarians at the Gates is hardly new. Those barbarians lay siege; if they win, they enter in triumph. Should they lose, the advanced civilization survives. But never before have the gates been opened, to an entering force that has not even been identified or understood. Never before have the inhabitants of the by-now vulnerable city made efforts not to recognize, or realize, what they have done, and what they have undone.

That demographic intrusion shows no signs of diminishing. The systematic building of mosques and madrasas, paid for by Saudi Arabia, everywhere in the Western world, helps to make the conduct of Muslim life easier. Western populations have been trained to make much of “celebrating diversity” and “promoting difference” and constructing, on a base of militant but unexamined pluralism, an edifice of legal rights and entitlements.

These rights, these entitlements, this militant pluralism are exploited by Muslims who do not believe in pluralism. Nor do they accept the individual rights of conscience and free speech, the legal equality of men and women, and of religious and racial minorities, recognized, for example, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Their current claim to support pluralism is based on the need to protect, and increase the power of, the Muslim umma, or Community, within the West, until such time as that umma no longer needs to pretend to have any interest in Western pluralism and Western values.

Fitzgerald: Islam for Infidels, Part One - Jihad Watch
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

This is an interesting perspective, but I don't think it works simply because you're equating physical attributes to inner thought. The two are in no way the same. All people of a particular group looking the same as a matter of their outward physical appearance is indeed absurd. Being able to look at a person and instinctively knowing what their mindset is is not realistic, hence there will always be a level of the unknown involved, and in that unknown exists the potential for bad.

I disagree, it's exactly the same. Lpast has admitted to being unable to distinguish the goals and beliefs of one group of Muslims from any other group of Muslims, and this inability has lead him to paint the entire lot with a broad brush. That is the intellectual equivalent of being unable to distinguish between one physical specimen and another.
 
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.

So, are there Muslim crossing warning signs where you live? How about a Muslim hunting season? You guys eat a lot of Muslim steaks in your neighborhood?
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

Oh, so you can recognize a non-violent Islamist who is working stealthily to weaken America?

What gives you such powers of discernment?

Is this a case of, "it takes one to know one?"

:poke

Damn, you found me out. I hereby declare holy war upon you. Raaaaaaaaaaar.
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

I disagree, it's exactly the same. Lpast has admitted to being unable to distinguish the goals and beliefs of one group of Muslims from any other group of Muslims, and this inability has lead him to paint the entire lot with a broad brush. That is the intellectual equivalent of being unable to distinguish between one physical specimen and another.
Yes, we disagree. Lpast is, at worst, extending correlation into causation. It is not a given that all members, or even a majority, of a given group will be doing any particular bad behavior. The causation, in it's literal sense, is a stretch. Granted.

But, if we're going to be intellectually honest, it is undeniable fact that some groups are more likely than others to do certain things, in this case terrorism against Americans. In today's world, is it most likely that, when a terrorist incident from without against Americans happens, that Mongolians will be the perpetrators? No. South Americans? No. Finns? No. Namibians? No.

Middle Easterners? You bet. To deny that is simply hiding one's own head in the sand. That's correlation, and has earned it's need for additional caution.
 
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:

or

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

Anti-american or Anti-US Government? Many people get the two confused.

There's nothing to get confused.
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

There's nothing to get confused.

If you believe that then YOU are confused.
 
re: O'Reilly: Al Gore's sale to al-Jazeera 'sleazy and disgraceful' [W:152]

Yes, we disagree. Lpast is, at worst, extending correlation into causation. It is not a given that all members, or even a majority, of a given group will be doing any particular bad behavior. The causation, in it's literal sense, is a stretch. Granted.

But that's not what he's saying. He's saying he can't tell the difference between one group of Muslims or another, so he can't figure out which are the ones we should be worried about.
 
Back
Top Bottom