Bill O'reilly put NPR in it's place!

[Code101]

So much for "Fresh Air" what a joke!

Talk about a weard no feeling program, fresh air is it. It can put you to sleep fast. Not when Bill O'reilly was on it. He put Terry in her place.

People say Fox News is a right wing station. It's true it does swing more to the right, but it has a private ownership. It has the right to do that. Fox does give the left a fair chance to make it's point. That's alot more than other organizations like NPR does for the right.

CNN (Clinton News Network) can swing more in favor of the left/UN. CNN is private as well.

NPR on the other hand is owned by the public when the federal government poors over a billion dollers into it. It's time to cut all funding to PBS in general. Time to kick them out on the street and let them make it the way all the other private media organizations do. According to the chairman on the senate Committee that oversees the spending on PBS, they are going to try to stop funding some time next year. Lets hope they cut it all along with all state owned public broadcasting as well.

[mactastic]

Funny how conservatives want to kill public arts funding, public radio and television, yet want to use government funding for "faith based" organizations. Hypocrasy at its finest.

[vwcruisn]

Maybe you should take a look at this thread here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40793)

[patrick0brien]

Originally posted by mactastic
Funny how conservatives want to kill public arts funding, public radio and television, yet want to use government funding for "faith based" organizations. Hypocrasy at its finest.

-Code101

Aak no! I love my WTTW channel 11!

Some of the best stuff comes from PBS - Sesame Street, 3-2-1 Contact, Nova, Mystery, Monty Python :D

Killing PBS and NPR would be a giant mistake as it would silence a very important voice.

We need all the voices we can get our ears to listen to.

-mactastic

I feel that brush may be a bit wide though.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by patrick0brien
-mactastic

I feel that brush may be a bit wide though.

Perhaps. You get my point though.

[Flowbee]

Originally posted by Code101
Lets hope they cut it all along with all state owned public broadcasting as well.

Yeah, who needs "Nova" when the private networks are giving us "Joe Millionaire," "Fear Factor," and "The Man Show?"

[patrick0brien]

Originally posted by Flowbee
Yeah, who needs "Nova" when the private networks are giving us "Joe Millionaire," "Fear Factor," and "The Man Show?"

-Flowbee

What's wrong with "Joe Millionaire"?


;)

[Code101]

So what! I understand that Nova and a few other programs are good but, what about all the 95% pro Democrat/pro UN/Anti American stuff they put out with my money. I'm Republican, when I hear a government funded organization puting out all this liberal stuff, I see that as the government sponsoring the left wing and not the right!

I don't want to pay for it. I'm not saying that PBS and NPR should be forced off the air. They just shouldn't receive public funding. NPR can say all the Pro UN, Pro Democrat, Anti American stuff all day long for all I care. They should just become "National Private Radio" if they are going to do it. They should have to compete with the rest of the private media organizations. If the public likes what they have to say, they will remain in business, if they don't then, sorry. The way it is now is bad. People like to hear that their country is good and some of the positive things going on. That's where Fox News comes in. CNN is going down hill fast. NPR stays the same because they don't have to worry if their listeners stop listening. They still get money from the government. That's wrong!

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Code101
So what! I understand that Nova and a few other programs are good but, what about all the 95% pro Democrat/pro UN/Anti American stuff they put out with my money. I'm Republican, when I hear a government funded organization puting out all this liberal stuff, I see that as the government sponsoring the left wing and not the right!

I don't want to pay for it.

Code, what about that ********** war I just had to pay for? I didn't like it, didn't support it, yet MY tax money went to pay for it. Unlike you, I recognize that some things my government does, I won't agree with, but that doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't do those things. Yes you have to listen to NPR, just as I have to watch Dubya put restrictions on aid programs that contain abortion or contraceptive information, or initiate government funding of faith based organizations. Life's a pisser sometimes.

[Daveman Deluxe]

Originally posted by Code101
If the public likes what they have to say, they will remain in business, if they don't then, sorry. The way it is now is bad. People like to hear that their country is good and some of the positive things going on. That's where Fox News comes in. CNN is going down hill fast. NPR stays the same because they don't have to worry if their listeners stop listening. They still get money from the government. That's wrong!

The things people WANT to hear rarely coincide with the things they NEED to hear.

Calvin's Dad once said that what's popular isn't always what's right. Bill Watterson said it was a commentary on the fact that poilitical campaigns are often run on polls. His complaint was that he sees little correlation between what the people want and what they actually need.

Any government should be in the business of ensuring that its citizens get what they need.

I am in support of PBS and NPR because they, like the BBC, are probably the most responsible broadcast news source in the world. You are so pissed off that PBS and NPR are often in favor of left-wing policy that you don't want to hear--did you ever stop to think that perhaps they're RIGHT? What you WANT may not correspond with what is RIGHT.

I don't care whether my news is coming from a "conservative" network or a "liberal" network as long as the information presented to me is true. At that point the network can analyze it however it wants as far as I am concerned.

Another thing I love about PBS is the historical, scientific, and hobbyist programming available. There are three things I watch anymore: sports, David Letterman, and PBS. I love quality programming such as The American Experience and Ken Burns' masterful documentaries. You can take Bill O'Reilly and keep him for all I care--I've read his opinions and am thoroughly disgusted with his spiteful and--quite frankly--hateful treatment of dissenters.

If it's entertainment programming you want, you can take "Girls Gone Wild" and shove it where the sun doesn't shine for all I care, I'm watching Ken Burns.

[mactastic]

I like watching Norm Abrams and his "leftist agenda" on the New Yankee Workshop too. I wish I could be anti-American in that fashion.:p

[Code101]

Originally posted by Daveman Deluxe
You are so pissed off that PBS and NPR are often in favor of left-wing policy that you don't want to hear--did you ever stop to think that perhaps they're RIGHT? What you WANT may not correspond with what is RIGHT.



And they are right according to who...? dems at our liberal anti American Universities? Come on!!!

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Code101
And they are right according to who...? dems at our liberal anti American Universities? Come on!!!

Perhaps you should read this thread. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40793)

Something about how misinformed FOX viewers are about the truth vs NPR listeners.

I suppose you aren't including Liberty University, or Bob Jones in your anti-American university slurs are you?

[Desertrat]

There's a reason that radios and TVs have channel selectors, not to mention the on-off switch.

About the only place my feathers get really ruffled about public funding of the arts is the arena of photo/painting/sculpture. I have rather a Heinleinian view of art, and at least mildly agree with him that those artists who partake of government money are prostitutes. While I don't say that sculpture ended with Rodin, the man at least had his statuary tell a story, rather than just "be".

And while I don't care for public support of the liberal message of NPR and PBS, they certainly rise far above Mr. Minow's view of the wasteland that is so much of private-sector TV. I just shrug it off as part of the price I must pay for higher quality TV and remember to keep fresh batteries in the clicker. :) TANSTAAFL.

:), 'Rat

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Code101

[inane blurb chomped]

so you're back. time heals all wounds. i wish it healed shrillness, too.

you should actually listen to NPR sometime. you might accidentally learn something.

[Macmaniac]

I'm 17 and my favorite radio station is NPR, yes I should be listening to music but I enjoy a good news cast, and NPR does that. You complain about it being t liberal, well we do have a republican president so why don't u fire em and put ur own agenda in there???
NPR does what few other stations do and it gets views from everywhere, they have a very good world view because they show what the world thinks of what we do, I think if we viewed ourseleves in a more global sense we would be able to pursue policy better. Their the most fair and balenced radio out there, at least they devote equal time to democrat and republican thoughts on an issue. Even if one is favored more the imbalence is far less then that of FOX.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Code101
And they are right according to who...? dems at our liberal anti American Universities? Come on!!!

Can you think outside a stereotype for like one ****ing minute?

[Daveman Deluxe]

Originally posted by Macmaniac
Their the most fair and balenced radio out there

I would have to give the award for that title to the BBC, but NPR comes in a very close second.

[Code101]

Originally posted by zimv20
so you're back. time heals all wounds. i wish it healed shrillness, too.

you should actually listen to NPR sometime. you might accidentally learn something.

I'm back? No, it just means that I don't sit around here all day and night like you saying bad things about my country that I love. It means that I have better things to do with my life. There has been no healing. You think you have hurt me? What a joke. Mabey to the extent of making me laugh real hard at the stupid things you say or making me nauseated.

You don't make sence most of the time. Like your what ever troll crap = "Code 101" on the other thread. Pretty stupid sounding to me. I think it's called hate!

Your problem is that you have listened to NPR too much. BRAINWASHING!!!

FYI, I listen to NPR almost every day, I feel clean again after I listen to O'reilly and Hannity.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Code101
I'm back? No, it just means that I don't sit around here all day and night like you saying bad things about my country that I love. It means that I have better things to do with my life. There has been no healing. You think you have hurt me? What a joke. Mabey to the extent of making me laugh real hard at the stupid things you say or making me nauseated.

You don't make sence most of the time. Like your what ever troll crap = "Code 101" on the other thread. Pretty stupid sounding to me. I think it's called hate!

Your problem is that you have listened to NPR too much. BRAINWASHING!!!

FYI, I listen to NPR almost every day, I feel clean again after I listen to O'reilly and Hannity.

i'm not sure what's funnier -- that you bothered to write that or you felt it important enough to go back and edit.

i give you points for correct use of "nauseated".

[IJ Reilly]

The interview can be heard here:

http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1459090.html

I couldn't get the javascript link to work in Safari, but MSIE worked.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly

http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1459090.html


WOW

i listened to the whole thing. what happens at the end is amazing. o'reilly had a meltdown. this is the first i've ever heard him (never seen his show), and he came across as a paranoid egomaniac.

he confused a paraphrase as libel, refused to even hear a question, then left the interview in what i thought was a childish manner. he obviously cannot stand to have people disagree w/ him.

he's very clever, though, in the way he paints himself as a victim. he's also constantly reminding the listening audience how fair and helpful he is and how everyone is out to get him. it's interesting to hear him all but accuse NPR, the NYT and Harper's of all being in cahoots.

and he was condescending to ms. gross from the get-go. he's smooth, in a way, but i think he's a real asshole.

[patrick0brien]

-zimv20

Well, NPR really didn't talk about his book, as their invitation said the interview was about.

I'm not justifying his actions, but I understand his reaction to being interviewed under pretenses that can considered false.

[Code101]

Originally posted by zimv20
WOW

i listened to the whole thing. what happens at the end is amazing. o'reilly had a meltdown. this is the first i've ever heard him (never seen his show), and he came across as a paranoid egomaniac.

he confused a paraphrase as libel, refused to even hear a question, then left the interview in what i thought was a childish manner. he obviously cannot stand to have people disagree w/ him.

he's very clever, though, in the way he paints himself as a victim. he's also constantly reminding the listening audience how fair and helpful he is and how everyone is out to get him. it's interesting to hear him all but accuse NPR, the NYT and Harper's of all being in cahoots.

and he was condescending to ms. gross from the get-go. he's smooth, in a way, but i think he's a real asshole.

I thought calling people names on here is against the rules. When you attack Bill O'reilly, Sean Hannity or President Bush with the name you used, I consider that a personal attack on myself.

Bill's book, "Who's looking out for you," isn't even about politics. It has nouthing to do with Right and Left. It's a book that helps people to be successful in life. NPR gave him a hard time because they just flat out don't like him because he works for FOX and has more Republican views. She didn't even want to talk about his book.

To be fair, Why don't you go back to NPR and listen to the Al Franken interview. They treated him like gold. Why, because they love his book. It makes fun af the President, Fox, Bill, Sean and other good people. Terry said she was hard on Bill but not Al and then made a lame excuse as to why she was easy on Al.

Time to pull the public funding on NPR, Unfair, Liberal and full of hate.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by patrick0brien

Well, NPR really didn't talk about his book, as their invitation said the interview was about.


i thought it was o'reilly who sidetracked it. once franken was mentioned (as a lead-in), o'reilly immediately went down some "how-frankens-book-was-treated cum how-all-smear-books-are-treated" path, which led ms. gross to start talking about how o'reilly's book was treated in the press.

honestly, i thought she was being patient and non-inflammatory. her questions were fair and it wasn't until o'reilly really started trying to control the interview (e.g. by refusing to let her read the excerpt from the people magazine review) that she finally got a little indignant at his behavior, and rightfully so.

his ensuing rant was uncalled for and, imo, embarrassing. i'm accostomed to hearing grown-ups on NPR. o'reilly was petulant and, in the end, did exactly what people accuse him of doing (cutting people off when he disagrees w/ them).

his BS was good, for a while, but it unraveled pretty quickly. though i only got a small taste, i'm having trouble understanding how people can listen to him day in and day out.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Code101
I thought calling people names on here is against the rules.


then report it.


When you attack Bill O'reilly, Sean Hannity or President Bush with the name you used, I consider that a personal attack on myself.


why?

[Code101]

Originally posted by zimv20
then report it.



why?

I'm not going to report it. I'm not a cry-baby and second, because i'm Republican, I would be the one to get in trouble because this site is the liberal snake pit.

Why do I take it personal when you call them names like the one you used? Because they are people I look up to. They stand for the same moral and political principles I believe in. They are some of my personal Heroes in life. Just like George Washington, Ben Franklin, Gordon B. Hinckley and Abraham Lincoln.

I guess I don't expect you to understand.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Code101
because i'm Republican, I would be the one to get in trouble because this site is the liberal snake pit.


it'd probably have more to do w/ your childish ravings than your political affiliation.


Why do I take it personal when you call them names like the one you used? Because they are people I look up to. They stand for the same moral and political principles I believe in.


eek.


I guess I don't expect you to understand.

no, i think i understand all _too_ well. i'm gonna back off, 'cuz i feel really sorry for you.

[Code101]

Originally posted by zimv20
it'd probably have more to do w/ your childish ravings than your political affiliation.



eek.



no, i think i understand all _too_ well. i'm gonna back off, 'cuz i feel really sorry for you.

I'm childish!!! Just you step up to the mirror and you will see all the childish you can take.

What a joke! Look if you can't add in a constructive way, just don't add to my threads at all. It's clear that you hang around in the Macrumors political section for the reason of causing trouble and Spewing your hate. Why don't you go to the main forum and talk about the G5 or something, in other words, get a life.

Good crap!

[Rower_CPU]

all-

Let's try not to intentionally egg each other on here.

Code101-
MR does not espouse any political ideology. Calling it a "liberal snake pit" is wrong and will earn you a quick trip out of here.

Also, for someone who has a majority of their posts in this forum, it is a little hypocritical to tell others to post elsewhere and "get a life".

[vwcruisn]

Originally posted by zimv20
it'd probably have more to do w/ your childish ravings than your political affiliation.



eek.


haha classic :D

[IJ Reilly]

Having posted the link to the interview here, I'm having a tough time getting much more than 15 minutes into it myself. But in that time it's become clear that O'Reilly is vain, egotistical, condescending, arrogant, and not a little paranoid. He is full of bluster and sophistry, and little more. These are qualities that some people seem to admire, and I'm having a little trouble with that, too.

Probably the most bizarre thing I heard in the first part of the interview was his effort to paint the New York Times as out to get him, mainly on the basis of how the Times reviewed Michael Moore's latest book. As if that really mattered one single iota, he basically accused Gross of not being able to read, suggesting that the last paragraph of the book review proved that the Times loved the book and all things left wing. When Gross proceeded to read that actual last paragraph, which was hardly a glowing endorsement of Moore's book, O'Reilly was silent for a second and then shot back something about re-reading it himself, and quickly changed the subject. Hypocrisy and dishonestly doesn't get much more obvious then this.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Code101
And they are right according to who...? dems at our liberal anti American Universities? Come on!!!

You know, I could take that anti-American swipe personally if you wanted to go down the whole name calling path. But it's just not worth it.

Don't think you are blameless though.

[pdham]

Originally posted by Code101
I'm not going to report it. I'm not a cry-baby and second, because i'm Republican, I would be the one to get in trouble because this site is the liberal snake pit.

You know, if you didnt come in here with a chip on your shoulder and a pre-judgement of the reaction you are going to get, you may in fact be able to have a real discussion and even make people see where you are coming from. They may not change their minds, but at least in the end they could respect your point of view.

But instead you go on the offensive and begin instigating the same old liberal vrs. conservative name callng and rehtoric. You arent supporting your side effectively with this behavior. I imagine if one of your heros such as O'Reilly saw this thread he wouldnt be thrilled that you are representing his side either.

[Flowbee]

Originally posted by pdham
I imagine if one of your heros such as O'Reilly saw this thread he wouldnt be thrilled that you are representing his side either.

Are you kidding? Have you ever seen O'Reilly's show? That's *exactly* how he deals with his critics. Code101 has learned well from the master.

[ColoJohnBoy]

Originally posted by Code101
And they are right according to who...? dems at our liberal anti American Universities? Come on!!!

LOOK, BUCKO, PERHAPS YOU SHOULD VISIT A COLLEGE CAMPUS OUTSIDE THE WONDERFUL STATE OF UTAH (WHERE I WAS BORN AND RAISED, BY THE WAY) TO SEE WHAT IT IS REALLY LIKE.

WHEN PEOPLE TAKE DOWN SIGNS FOR A DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE, THOUGH THEY ARE FARILY PLACED, COMPLETELY WITHIN ALL RULES AND BOUNDARIES SET BY A COLLEGE CAMPUS, WHEN THEY TAKE THEM DOWN WITHOUT CAUSE OR REASON, REPEATEDLY AND RAMPANTLY, OVER SEVERAL CAMPAIGNS FOR SEVERAL DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES, THERE IS ONLY ONE WORD TO DESCRIBE IT:

FASCISM.

I respect the fact that every man has the right to his own opinion, and I respect that opinion, though I may disagree with it. I respect any opinion AS LONG AS IT IS INFORMED, and AS LONG IT IS BASED IN FACT AND NOT IN PROPAGANDA.

It pains me to see the negative effect this administration has had on the country; it pains me to see people blindly and militantly follow it to whatever end; it pains me that I have lost two years of contact with my father, because he has been sent halfway around the world to fight an unjust war, a war predicated on a lie.

I love this country. I love the ideas that were in the minds of its creators, and I bear in mind the great potential that this country has. But when an ignorant facist is praised for quashing the thoughts and opinions of another, a person whose views are as completely legitimate as his own, I see that potential squandered; beaten down and spit upon.

Believe what you want to believe; praise who you believe deserves it; but do not call me anti-American for disagreeing with you. That is a statement with implications you can't understand.

[patrick0brien]

Originally posted by ColoJohnBoy
It pains me to see the negative effect this administration has had on the country;

-All

Y'know, this comment reminds me of something Terry Gross asked Bill in this interview - to paraphrase from memory:

"Do you fee that todays talk shows purposly bring persons on from extreme points of view to get a good argument?"

If I were asked, I'd say yes - absolutely. Bill makes a living off of it - so did Savage, and pretty much every other talking head - so take all of them with a grain of salt, and try not to become a 'follower'.

But let's look at the bigger picture Terry's question paints. All of these interviews and discussions with persons from extremely opposed points of view all trying to out-yell each other, bleeds off into the populace.

Look at this discussion.

There is no black and white. Clinton was a president who did good things, and did bad things. The same can be said about Bush - and ever single president all the way back to Washington.

We need to back off and fight the fights that need fighting, one issue at a time. O'Reilly isn't a bad person - he has strengths - the ability to stay on subject and cut straight to an issue without lollygagging around the periphery. But also has faults - his penchant to close his mind to other points of view too fast.

We need to rememebr there is something to be learned from everybody - everybody with a heartbeat has something to contribute.

Please, let's back off each others throats a bit, and look at what we can do about or little corner of the world and not scream at others online - honestly, what percentage of good contribution vs. drivel can be gleaned from a screamer?

Just a request.

[IJ Reilly]

I can heartily agree with this sentiment, but I don't think the solution is necessarily "taking talking heads with a grain of salt." It may not be obvious from all of the self-absorbed commentators who populate the cable channels these days that newspeople do exist who are interested in shedding light instead of hearing themselves yak. The key to a more civil and informative political dialog is tuning out blustering egotists like of Bill O'Reilly, not forgiving them their faults.

[mactastic]

I like watching Chris Matthews. Tough, fair, and always has a smile on his face. He really seems to enjoy the debating process a whole lot.

[IJ Reilly]

I'm not big on the debate format of commenting about the news. It isn't long before even a cautious viewer is trying to decide who "won" the debate, instead of absorbing information. As close as I come to liking this format is the Mark Sheilds and David Brooks weekly political wrap on the NewsHour every Friday. Sheilds and Brooks comment from the Democratic and Republic perspectives (respectively), but it's remarkable how often they cross over to criticize members of their own parties or praise a member of the other. They can both be quite droll, which also makes it entertaining. Unfortunately Brooks is on hiatus for awhile and was temporary replaced with William Safire, who I personally find to be less interesting, but I still look forward to these segments every week.

[Mason]

Why do conservatives like Code 101 always accuse liberals of spewing "hate"? I see this all the time, and it seems to be a tactic to try and shame the other side. It really is a pathetic mislabeling of the other side in an attempt to win an argument without having to offer anything substantive.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I'm not big on the debate format of commenting about the news. It isn't long before even a cautious viewer is trying to decide who "won" the debate, instead of absorbing information. As close as I come to liking this format is the Mark Sheilds and David Brooks weekly political wrap on the NewsHour every Friday. Sheilds and Brooks comment from the Democratic and Republic perspectives (respectively), but it's remarkable how often they cross over to criticize members of their own parties or praise a member of the other. They can both be quite droll, which also makes it entertaining. Unfortunately Brooks is on hiatus for awhile and was temporary replaced with William Safire, who I personally find to be less interesting, but I still look forward to these segments every week.

I also enjoyed Paul Gigot in the spot Brooks and now Safire are filling. And I agree totally with you about the debate format. It can be good, and for those not caring about "won" or "lost" but rather in the best points of each side it is a useful tool. But most of the debate style segments are too shrill, plus those who are good at it are savvy to the time structure of TV and the ways you can stall and obfuscate until the segment is over and no follow ups are possible.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by mactastic
I also enjoyed Paul Gigot in the spot Brooks and now Safire are filling. And I agree totally with you about the debate format. It can be good, and for those not caring about "won" or "lost" but rather in the best points of each side it is a useful tool. But most of the debate style segments are too shrill, plus those who are good at it are savvy to the time structure of TV and the ways you can stall and obfuscate until the segment is over and no follow ups are possible.

Good point. If you've ever seen him on the Capital Gang, you know Mark Shields certainly understands how that game is played. The NewsHour isn't that kind of venue, which is why I watch it. The last of the real news programs, IMO.

Gigot was sharp, but I thought he could get kind of cranky and unpleasant sometimes. Brooks is equally sharp, and has a quick sense of humor to match Sheilds. (Who I realize now has been the constant on this segment forever, even as the Republican faces change. For some reason the Republicans keep getting better offers then PBS!)

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Mason
Why do conservatives like Code 101 always accuse liberals of spewing "hate"? I see this all the time, and it seems to be a tactic to try and shame the other side. It really is a pathetic mislabeling of the other side in an attempt to win an argument without having to offer anything substantive.

Do not stereotype.

I don't accuse liberals of spewing hate.

[patrick0brien]

Originally posted by Mason
...of the other side in an attempt...

-Mason

I am very uncomfortable with this use of language.

In my experience, there is no "other side" and to begin to think so tends to draw battle lines that only lead to fanatization of a range of issues - where battle lines should never be.

I am Republican, and have liberal views on certain subjects, and conservative on others. There was a thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35560&highlight=what+is+a+liberal) on this application of label.

I believe we should try to avoid applying labels to persons whenever possible - even though it is in our nature as humans to categorize.

[Mason]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Do not stereotype.

I don't accuse liberals of spewing hate.

I am referring only to conservatives such as Code 101 who use this tactic, not all conservatives.

[Mason]

Originally posted by patrick0brien
-Mason

I am very uncomfortable with this use of language.

In my experience, there is no "other side" and to begin to think so tends to draw battle lines that only lead to fanatization of a range of issues - where battle lines should never be.

I am Republican, and have liberal views on certain subjects, and conservative on others. There was a thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35560&highlight=what+is+a+liberal) on this application of label.

I believe we should try to avoid applying labels to persons whenever possible - even though it is in our nature as humans to categorize.

I'm the labeler in this thread? Code 101 has been the most divisive of anyone here so far. I am merely respond to a particular tactic of his and am not trying to lump all conservatives or republicans together.

[patrick0brien]

Originally posted by Mason
I'm the labeler in this thread? Code 101 has been the most divisive of anyone here so far. I am merely respond to a particular tactic of his and am not trying to lump all conservatives or republicans together.

-Mason

I'm not placing blame here, and that was a part of my point. Doing so is divisive, unproductive and off the topic.

If you feel like you are being labeled and wish to respond, wait a sec, if you respond too quickly without allowing a cooldown, it is possible to place yourself in the very camp you are railing against.

It is possible to respond to something you take a difference to without feeding the flames further - it just takes a moment to gather the proper language.

Please read my current sig...

[Mason]

Originally posted by patrick0brien
-Mason

I'm not placing blame here, and that was a part of my point. Doing so is divisive, unproductive and off the topic.

If you feel like you are being labeled and wish to respond, wait a sec, if you respond too quickly without allowing a cooldown, it is possible to place yourself in the very camp you are railing against.

It is possible to respond to something you take a difference to without feeding the flames further - it just takes a moment to gather the proper language.

Please read my current sig...

Um. I didn't feel I was being labeled. I just was responding to the points you made.

[patrick0brien]

Originally posted by Mason
Um. I didn't feel I was being labeled. I just was responding to the points you made.

-Mason

Sorry, I was being sagacious. And not directing criticism at you based on you possible feeling I was labeling you with anything.

Perhaps this rephrase: "If you feel like you are being labeled by somebody and wish to respond, wait a sec, if you respond too quickly without allowing a cooldown, it is possible to place yourself in the very camp you are railing against."

My apologies if I seemed patronizing - I was intending general text-based communication advice.

If Code 101 wants to yell, let's let him. No need to double the volume by yelling back.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by patrick0brien
If Code 101 wants to yell, let's let him. No need to double the volume by yelling back.

Yeah, he's in a hole already, let him keep digging.
Oh, yeah, it's not a hole, it's a "liberal snakepit." ;)

[ColoJohnBoy]

Code, you may wish to avoid comparing President Bush, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly to Gordon B. Hinckley. Gordon Hinckley is indeed a moral man, undoubtedly. President Bush..... well, he has overcome a lot and has a great deal yet to overcome. As for the others and their penchant for discounting opposing viewpoints as idiocy, the less attention paid to them the better

I have another question: do you admire James E. Faust morally, if not politically?

I would be intrigued if you do. He's a pro-choice Democrat, as liberal as O'Reilly is conservative.

So is Elder Marlin K. Jensen. Nevada Senator Harry Reid. Former Montreal Mission President and U.S. Representative Wayne Owens.

The list goes on. All moral men. All devout members of the Mormon church, as I once was, and as I assume you are. Once you've read this, refer back to my first post. Do not equate morality with political truth or vice versa.

You might find this site (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/7207/demosp4.html) of some interest.

Doctrine & Covenants 121: 37 - "... but when we undertake to.. gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behyold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grived;"

[candan9019]

This is annoying. Why is it that when you say you dislike the president all the conservitives call you anti-american? In a Democracy you are SUPPOSED TO CRITICISE YOUR LEADER. Canadians do it all the time, even when they voted for that party. I really can't say anything because I'm not American, yet I basically grew up here. My opinion is supposedly worthless.

All conservatives do is complain about the evil liberals. I don't like your ideas you don't like mine. You can not convince me yours is better and I can't convince you. Stop complaining an live with it. Get something done.

A little off topic but come on! Well Im going to go calm down Im too worked up.