The Kings of Hypocrisy

[Guest Guest]

I'm amused at the way you throw the word "fact" around. It appears if you've read something on huffington or heard it on MSNBC, it's a fact. But if it's something O'Reilly or others on the right has said, it's a lie.

I'm sure you don't see any bias in the way your brain processes information.

There were no WMDs in Iraq. After all this time, none have been found. That's a fact.

Bush and Cheney cherry-picked their so-called intelligence. That's a fact. Their own people have revealed it.

The war in Iraq wasn't the cakewalk Bush and Cheney told us it would be. Nearly a decade later, we're still there. That's a fact.

The Iraqi war did not make the Middle East a haven for democracy. We're still struggling to prop up the Iraqi government. That's a fact.

We didn't go into Iraq because we were being threatened. We went in because Bush wanted to. It was a war of choice, not of necessity. That is a fact.

Iran has become a nuclear threat because we removed their main concern in the region. The region is less stable now than it was then. That is a fact.

And as if that isn't bad enough, those of us who disagreed with the war were called traitors. That also is a fact.

When you see one side constantly distorting the truth and making things up, and calling people who don't agree with them traitors, pointing it out isn't biased.

[Guest Guest]

You're a fat, friendless loser and you know it. Just **** yourself.

Spoken like a true democrat. Do you know Keith?

[Guest Paul]

I'm amused at the way you throw the word "fact" around. It appears if you've read something on huffington or heard it on MSNBC, it's a fact. But if it's something O'Reilly or others on the right has said, it's a lie.

I'm sure you don't see any bias in the way your brain processes information.

But I do see it. We all have biases. Stop the incessant vitriol, post intelligently and back up your arguments with facts, preferably by posting under your real name - then if you see me exhibiting a bias you'll have grounds to call me on it. That's not what you're doing. All you just did was claim that my views about Huffington, MSNBC and O'Reilly are categorical, which isn't true. O'Reilly consistently gets things wrong. Don't expect me to treat the sides equivalently when they don't behave the same.

[Guest 2smart4u]

There were no WMDs in Iraq. After all this time, none have been found. That's a fact.

Bush and Cheney cherry-picked their so-called intelligence. That's a fact. Their own people have revealed it.

The war in Iraq wasn't the cakewalk Bush and Cheney told us it would be. Nearly a decade later, we're still there. That's a fact.

The Iraqi war did not make the Middle East a haven for democracy. We're still struggling to prop up the Iraqi government. That's a fact.

We didn't go into Iraq because we were being threatened. We went in because Bush wanted to. It was a war of choice, not of necessity. That is a fact.

Iran has become a nuclear threat because we removed their main concern in the region. The region is less stable now than it was then. That is a fact.

And as if that isn't bad enough, those of us who disagreed with the war were called traitors. That also is a fact.

When you see one side constantly distorting the truth and making things up, and calling people who don't agree with them traitors, pointing it out isn't biased.

I stirred up another minion.

[Guest Keith]

I stirred up another minion.

You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the ass. BTW did you ever google "FOX new lies" and "MSNBC Lies" ?

I would love to hear your take on it if only you could keep from lying about it.

[Guest 2smart4u]

But I do see it. We all have biases. Stop the incessant vitriol, post intelligently and back up your arguments with facts, preferably by posting under your real name - then if you see me exhibiting a bias you'll have grounds to call me on it. That's not what you're doing. All you just did was claim that my views about Huffington, MSNBC and O'Reilly are categorical, which isn't true. O'Reilly consistently gets things wrong. Don't expect me to treat the sides equivalently when they don't behave the same.

I watch O'Reilly regularly and have never seen him "get things wrong". I doubt that you watch him more than occasionally so how do you come to that conclusion?

[Guest Guest]

The mark of a poorly educated person is that you change the subject when you don't have an answer.

Your comment is the mark of a pompous fool.

Paul brought up Humanism and crime and punishment.

[Guest Guest]

Because there are innocent people who need recompense. It's not punitive. It's compensatory.

Call it what you like, monetary judgements against people or companies are meant to punish them.

Whatever gets you through the night.

[Guest Guest]

So Teddy admits his car accident was inexcusable and how he suffered over the years. It seems even he knew he got away with a big one.

[Guest Guest]

Call it what you like, monetary judgements against people or companies are meant to punish them.

No they are not. I served on jury. We were told that any award to the plaintiff was to compensate, not to punish anyone.

[Guest 2smart4u]

So Teddy admits his car accident was inexcusable and how he suffered over the years. It seems even he knew he got away with a big one.

A suspended sentence for leaving the scene, oh how he suffered.

[Guest Guest]

Paul brought up Humanism and crime and punishment.

Yes he did, and his comments make perfect sense. You or some other Guest turned it personal.

[Guest Guest]

I watch O'Reilly regularly and have never seen him "get things wrong". I doubt that you watch him more than occasionally so how do you come to that conclusion?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/st...er-baby-killer/

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1108

http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/03/06/bill-o...ecking-failure/

http://blogs.tampabay.com/media/2009/06/he...-to-check-.html

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6064

Lying appears to be endemic to the right in the US:

http://ithithome.blogspot.com/2009/08/fact...lies-about.html (See the video, “The Truth About Amsterdam”)

One of O’Reilly’s problems is that he’s not honest with himself:

You can see the arrogant, bullying anger that leads to O’Reilly’s problem here:

If you watch O’Reilly and don’t see this, it’s because you don’t want to see it – which is the same problem O’Reilly has. Like everyone on the radical fringe right, it seems, you see only what you wish to see and the facts don't matter.

[Guest Guest]

So Teddy admits his car accident was inexcusable and how he suffered over the years. It seems even he knew he got away with a big one.

He probably got away with more than one. You probably have, too. The point is that he made something positive of the remainder of his life.

[Guest Paul]

No they are not. I served on jury. We were told that any award to the plaintiff was to compensate, not to punish anyone.

That is correct. I believe that is the law in all 50 states and the federal courts.

[Guest Guest]

That is correct. I believe that is the law in all 50 states and the federal courts.

So when a doctor or his insurance company pays to compensate someone that sues him he's not being punished?

Nice spin.

[Guest Guest]

He probably got away with more than one. You probably have, too. The point is that he made something positive of the remainder of his life.

The last time I checked I hadn't left anyone to drown in a car and not reported it for 10 hours. You're talking like the guy stole a piece of candy from a store when he was a kid. The man spent his life pulling this kind of nonsense all the time. From cheating on exams at college to almost constant drinking and partying. Don't forget to throw in some allegations of being present during a rape. And this is only the stuff the public hears about. Then silly people like you are willing to give him a pass because he spent decades living the high life as a U.S. Senator.

[Guest Guest]

Yes he did, and his comments make perfect sense. You or some other Guest turned it personal.

No actually Paul made it personal by telling me about his religion.

[Guest Paul]

The last time I checked I hadn't left anyone to drown in a car and not reported it for 10 hours. You're talking like the guy stole a piece of candy from a store when he was a kid. The man spent his life pulling this kind of nonsense all the time. From cheating on exams at college to almost constant drinking and partying. Don't forget to throw in some allegations of being present during a rape. And this is only the stuff the public hears about. Then silly people like you are willing to give him a pass because he spent decades living the high life as a U.S. Senator.

So what is the point? I see no point in judging someone like that.

What's the point? What good does it do?

[Guest Paul]

So when a doctor or his insurance company pays to compensate someone that sues him he's not being punished?

Nice spin.

Call it spin if you want but that is the law in all 50 states and our federal system, too. The intent is to compensate the victim. That's what the law says.

It seems as though you're unconcerned with the injured party. I say that because I don't see you taking their interests into account. If someone does a wrong to them, causing an injury, why shouldn't they be compensated?

[Guest Guest]

No actually Paul made it personal by telling me about his religion.

You missed the point. Everyone has a religion, whether they believe in a god or not. Any time people express an idea about what is right or wrong, they express something about their religion. Paul was just acknowledging that this was his idea of what is right; as I read him, he was acknowledging that he doesn't claim to have a divine mandate.

[Guest Guest]

A suspended sentence for leaving the scene, oh how he suffered.

Not the point. That was the sentence. Then you move on.

He did. The people of Massachusetts did. Obviously you have not.

[Guest Guest]

Not the point. That was the sentence. Then you move on.

He did. The people of Massachusetts did. Obviously you have not.

I know Mary Jo Kopechne wasn't able to move on. I imagine her family wasn't able to either.

[Guest Guest]

Call it spin if you want but that is the law in all 50 states and our federal system, too. The intent is to compensate the victim. That's what the law says.

It seems as though you're unconcerned with the injured party. I say that because I don't see you taking their interests into account. If someone does a wrong to them, causing an injury, why shouldn't they be compensated?

Come on Paul, do we really need to play lawyer word games. The victim is compensated but the money comes from the doctors, insurance companies, and drug companies.

I have know problem when someone has a legitimate claim. I just wonder how many true claims there are.

[Guest Guest]

So what is the point? I see no point in judging someone like that.

What's the point? What good does it do?

I don't know Paul, what is the point? A person does all this f**ked up stuff in their life yet goes on to live like a king and everybody loves them. It doesn't matter how much wreckage they leave in their wake. Please explain it to me.

If that was done to your child wouldn't you seek justice? Do you think the Kopechne family received justice?