Monday, November 20, 2006

How do you know a Right Wing Neo-Conservative is lying? Their lips are moving.

Under the heading: Is he a compulsive liar or just stupid?
While Bill o'Reilly actually took a reasonable stand in speaking out against this ridiculous O.J. Simpson "If I did it..." interview about his book, and at first blush it would also seem somewhat a courageous move because it attacked a Fox Television broadcast. O'Reilly is, after all, a Fox Cable Talk Show Host. Now, it has been suggested to me, and I was impressed to think it likely, that O'Reilly was just being used n=by FOX to drum up interest and controversy, for the broadcast. Hard to say for sure, since, he then, in what was perhaps a quick after thought of the impropriety of attacking one's bosses, hastened to point out that "For the record, Fox Broadcasting (showing OJ) has nothing to do with the Fox News Channel,". Now of course, both venues, as well as the publisher of the OJ book are all owned by the News Corporation. So that is like saying you have nothing to do with your---brother, or sister. Now, even if you don't speak to your siblings, you do have the same parents, and you may have to share some of the same interests and motivations whether you like it or not. But, of course, O'Reilly never cares what he says, because if quoted on it later, he will deny it and defy you to show a transcript where he ever said it. After you show him the transcript he has been known to ignore it and keep on claiming there is no proof. In truth, I haven't bothered to document his lies, as people like Al Franken, with research teams from Harvard, have bothered to do so, with footnotes and endnotes, as well. But for the last five or so years, the on again off again truthfulness of Conservatives, whether in Federal Government, or on Television/Radio has turned pretty much into a more consistent and more entertaining complete pack of lies. As long as you understand you are watching Fiction for entertainment purposes--no harm done. If you want accuracy from FOX Properties, you are better off watching their reality shows, like American idol. Simon Cowell speaks more truth in an hour, then O'Reilly and Hannity do in a Season. Other Candidates for poor truth telling skills (they are compulsive, but I am just picking out their award winning performances : President Bush"Mission Accomplished!" Joe Lieberman "I saw real signs of improvement in Iraq. Things are going well." and all that stuff about being in a new era of peace and security and democracy in Iraq. Dick Cheney: any of his innumerable lies about Halliburton, including that they weren't doing business with Iran when they were. Rumsfeld, when talking about WMD: "We know where they are. They're right in the area around Tikrit." I could go on, but so many of these lies have already been exposed so it is just nonessential redundancy. Clinton lied about getting blow jobs in circumstances where he should never have been questioned about them in the first place. But the Conservatives clearly have the moral high ground: they are much more interested in getting our nation's youth killed for distractions to the war on terrorism then in getting blow jobs. Especially since they can consider it 'urban renewal' since most of the enlisted soldiers are poor minorities from dysfunctional urban settings. In that sense, as I have always maintained, everyday George W. does more to end poverty than many otherPresidents, except of course for Presidents like Clinton, that actually improved the economy for everyone---in every tax bracket. Maybe, if all these Conservatives in our government were more interested in blow jobs, or in actually fighting for their country when they had the opportunity, they would get out more of their aggressive impulses and would have had the patience to actually think before they act. Now, the draft won't pass--Rangel has the right idea, but it would make the Democrats too unpopular--the country has a hard time following subtle logic, but it doesn't matter---George W. and his ilk would just get their children into the National Guard, and then get them into some deferrment situation if their division was called to battle, anyway. Like their fathers before them; it's a family tradition... of cowardice, but a tradition nevertheless. They are only courageous with other peoples lives.

2 comments:

Bruce said...

I am heartened to be able to quote you giving a rather generous compliment to Mr. O'Reilly:

"Bill O'Reilly actually took a reasonable stand in speaking out against...O.J. Simpson..."

Now that you've found some moral common ground with a conservative, do i sense a recognition from you that a bird can not fly with only a left-wing?

Larry said...

Nor just with a right. Nor just with the middle. We need it all. I am not against the Right, or Conservatives, but rather what they completely morphed into in the 21st Century--which is to say they feel it is okay to deceive the American public to acheive the goals that they may honestly feel are right. It started with reagan, whose policies damaged the poor and lower middle class, and which impacted my family at the time directly. The 80's were a great time, unless you were not upwardly mobile, or worse, sick and ending up on disability as one of my close family members did. I miss the Conservatives of Nixon's ilk, no, not the paranoid above the law qualities, but the way they fought for all Americans, tried to stabalize inflation and interest rates, Nixon was the last President before Clinton to push for Healthcare Reform, worked as part of a world community, contrast Nixon and China with George W. and---anybody. I honestly think George H.W. (senior) was more for all thre American people then his son could ever be. He was a better human being, but like Carter, did not know how to balance it all in the context of the machinations of government. Nixon did. Clinton did. I won't go into the splendid job Clinton did to start the war against terror, as it is easy to investigate yourself, as Al Franken did. But if you look up things about Richard Clarke, including why W. and Condi and Powell kept him on, and why he stayed, you will see that the only problem with how Democrats fight terrorism is how the Right lies about it. Did Clinton do a perfect job? Does anyone? But sadly, the last 6 years have been the worst of jobs. I do indeed think both sides of the debate are necessary, or there is no debate. However, much of the American people are won over by lies that sound good, and say what they want to hear. Undoubtedly, the Right is better at capitalizing on this, but it is not a heartening trend, if the Democrats must start to lie in order to get their agendas across. I do not advocate lying, but for the edge play Rove and his ilk have foisted on the public, such as the push-polls that did McCain in, in the South, I have no problem with joining in dirt until a better way is adopted, or better yet, demanded by the American Electorate. And by the way, just because O'Reilly got it right for a change, does not negate his history of lies and stupidity. He still does not understand the connections between FOX Television and FOX Cable. He must think they were just named for the same animal.