Anne Coulter and Bill O'Reilly: Well and Truly Wrong

[Absinthe]

Do you think that memorial was photoshopped or something?

You should be well aware of the fact that GeoCities is the home of tinfoil hats and unmonitored bullshit. It also doesn't help that I can't even make out what's actually on the memorial. Not that I'm denying it exists...

Honestly, you'd react in the same way.

And you missed the part where the Canadian government gave permission for their soldiers to fight in vietnam.

*Sigh* Let's take some baby steps here.

I go to the cinema after my parents gave me permission to do so.

Did they:

A) Send me to the cinema.

or

B) Allow me to go to the cinema.

Please note that, as I said earlier, permission =/= marching orders.

By the way, what twisted straw man bullshit are you using? I'm not denying that Canadians were in Vietnam. But that does not mean that the country of Canada sent military support over to Indochina. Any Canadians that went over there did so out of their own choice.

All it does is prove that Canada had more to do with vietnam than Moore would have you believe.

The clip denied that Canada sent troops over to Vietnam. That's all, buddy.

Methinks you're just trying to find some way to counter Moore in any way possible, even if that includes grasping at something that just so happens to mention "Canada" and "Vietnam" on the same page.

 

[clarky003]

lol, those first 2 videos where brilliant , there so biased, their trying to convince themselves that there lies are true... rofl.. and the more people accuse them of it, the more they retaliate and dribble more BS to attempt to keep themselves sound of mind in what they stand for :dork: .

 

[Absinthe]

I'll let that Canada stuff go now that I see you all don't mind dishonoring what they did in vietnam and you won't budge for anything.

Bodacious, it's not our fault that your argument has zero ****ing relevance, let alone any sense.

Serving in the US military doesn't make your citizenship invalid. It does not, however, mean that your nation sent military support to aid in the war.

You're making up your own opposition and then arguing with it. So let's just break it down nice and easy.

Canada never sent troops to Vietnam.

Case closed. Buh-bye.

 

[Tr0n]

Tr0n, did you just call Anne Coulter... hot?

Damn straight I did. :naughty:

 

[Bodacious]

This is too complicated for you and I really don't feel like explaining how imports/exports work. So lets just make this as simple as possible. O'Reilly called for a boycott in June 2003 (I just looked that up, might want to double check as I don't have time right now). Lets look at what happened when he called for this boycott:

May - 2,236.6

June - 2,461.4 (increase from May, meaning the boycott didn't do anything)

July - 2,524.3 (again increase)

Aug - 2,278.3 (finally a decrease but this bouces back up almost instantly and this is a trend for all years in the period of July - Aug, so again this means the boycott didn't do shit)

Sept - 2,704.1 (again, huge increase from Aug and July)

So I ask you, where are the billions lost as O'Reilly said?

Haha, and where did you get the info on when O'Reilly's boycott started?

Funny no one tries to argue this point but you.

 

[Sainku]

Bill O'Reilly and Ann coulter ( she is pretty hot ) lying! God no! Whats next, are you going tell me Rush Limbaugh, Micheal Moore, and every other well known politician has lied too? That would just be silly.


Bodacious, they aren't demeaning the canadian's sacrafice during vietnam. They are just telling you the canadian government had no part in it. Until the memorial of course.


And will you guys PLEASE stop it with the "Classic republican spin!" and "Typical left wing bullshit!" stuff. It really ticks me off, its like your bias wasn't obvious enough and you feel the need to shove it down our throats.

 

[No Limit]

And will you guys PLEASE stop it with the "Classic republican spin!" and "Typical left wing bullshit!" stuff. It really ticks me off, its like your bias wasn't obvious enough and you feel the need to shove it down our throats.

Saying you don't support the troops is classic republican spin. Yes, I am biased but this is a simple fact. Liberals have been continually attacked with that when they disagreed with conservatives and it is exactly what he just did. This is exactly what he said:

"Oh you don't agree with me that Canada sent troops, then you don't support the troops."

 

[No Limit]

Haha, and where did you get the info on when O'Reilly's boycott started?

Funny no one tries to argue this point but you.

By now I would have thought you would know I don't just pull this stuff out of my ass as I trust you don't do in most cases. I looked it up on the internet and it said the show broadcast in Jun 03. If I am wrong prove me wrong and I will analyze the situation with the corrected information and apologize for my mistake. However, I really don't have time to play these stupid source games with you as I am at work. A simple search on google should help you find that episode and when it was aired, if you find it please post it.

 

[No Limit]

Ok, I stand corrected:

In March 2003, O'Reilly called for a boycott of French products and services sold in the United States due to President Jacques Chirac's stance on the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The boycott is focused on high-profile French products such as cheese, wine, cosmetics, and bottled water, in addition to French-owned companies conducting business in the U.S., such as Air France. [26] (http://www.billoreilly.com/pg/jsp/community/contactcenter.jsp)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_O'Reilly_(commentator)

I will be back in a second to rework my post so it is accurate.

 

[Bodacious]

By now I would have thought you would know I don't just pull this stuff out of my ass as I trust you don't do in most cases. I looked it up on the internet and it said the show broadcast in Jun 03. If I am wrong prove me wrong and I will analyze the situation with the corrected information and apologize for my mistake. However, I really don't have time to play these stupid source games with you as I am at work. A simple search on google should help you find that episode and when it was aired, if you find it please post it.

Ok, here is one link that quotes O'Reilly's boycott of france as early as March of '03.

http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000637.html

Here is a blog that talkes about O'Reilly's boycott of france dated in March of 03.

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1184

March comes before june right? There are 2 examples that show the boycott started before june of 03. Need me to find more?

 

[jondy]

Bodacious, you're grasping at straws here, and you're also being unnecessarily aggressive.

 

[No Limit]

Ok, here is one link that quotes O'Reilly's boycott of france as early as March of '03.

http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000637.html

Here is a blog that talkes about O'Reilly's boycott of france dated in March of 03.

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1184

March comes before june right? There are 2 examples that show the boycott started before june of 03. Need me to find more?

I made a mistake and I stand corrected; I pointed out the correction in a post right before yours.

This is where I got Jun 03 from:

http://www.webwonks.org/Extra/boycott/boycott.html

 

[No Limit]

I won't redo the math as its pointless. Look at your source again, from March - July O'Reilly had absolutely no effect on the imports. Still proves my original point even if I did make a mistake. Anything else you would like to add?

 

[CptStern]

O'Reilly fabricated evidence of success of purported boycott of French imports

"Media Matters for America found no evidence of a publication named "The Paris Business Review." A Google.com search revealed no mentions of "Paris Business Review," "Revue des Affaires de Paris," or any similar French name. A LexisNexis search for "Paris," "France," or "French" within five words of "business review" produced no relevant results. There is a journal called "European Business Review," which is published in England; however, over the past two years, "European Business Review" has not mentioned an American boycott of France.

Furthermore, contrary to O'Reilly's claim that France has lost "billions of dollars" due to an American boycott, American imports from France have actually increased since international tensions with France began in the months prior to the start of the war in Iraq in March 2003. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in February 2004, the United States imported $2.26 billion in French goods and services, up from $2.18 billion in February 2002."


source



from wikipedia:


"On April 27, 2004, O'Reilly said on The Factor that the Paris Business Review stated that France had lost "millions of dollars", suggesting that this was because of his boycott. Subsequent investigations by various watchdog groups, specifically Media Matters, showed that there is no publication of that name in France. O'Reilly has since stated that it was a publication by a different name that he got the information from; however, he has not named this publication.

A little more than a year after his call for the boycott, O'Reilly stated that his claims regarding France's supposed financial problems were backed by U.S. government data. [27] (http://www.nydailynews.com/07-06-2004/news/ideas_opinions/story/209331p-180428c.html) However, statistics given by Media Matters show only a $288 million (USD), or 6%, drop in imports to the U.S. from France during the first two months of O'Reilly's boycott when compared to the same time period (March and April) of the previous year, and that even larger drops had occurred prior to O'Reilly's boycott. They also state that "it is meaningless to draw conclusions from only two months of data"

 

[Mechagodzilla]

The reason why no-one is bothering to re-enforce his point is that it's solid enough.

The boycott started in at the very end of april, and as you can see imports went up steadily from may up until august, with the september levels still signifigantly higher than the original may numbers.

And you've sidestepped the entire point that the Paris Buisiness Revue is not real, so even if O'Reilley's claims were 100% accurate, it would be purely a fluke of luck.

 

[Bodacious]

Whatever. You let people like John Kerry get away with comitting atrocities and Clinton dodging the draft, but when any conservative makes a mistake you pople won't let go, even when given the facts.

 

[CptStern]

"but when any conservative makes a mistake "


that mistake cost the iraqi people dearly ..to the tune of 15,000+

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Whatever. You let people like John Kerry get away with comitting atrocities and Clinton dodging the draft, but when any conservative makes a mistake you pople won't let go, even when given the facts.

Hahah, Kerry didn't 'get away' with shit. He admitted everything.

And it's not just "a conservative making a mistake."
This is a man, a man who claims to be a journalist, who consistently claims that his mistake is true when it is not. That makes him a liar.

Looks like *you people* (by which I mean pundits of any caliber) are too ready to just yell "look, John Kerry/George Bush's war record!!!" and then run away from the discussion when you're wrong.

 

[Sainku]

"but when any conservative makes a mistake "


that mistake cost the iraqi people dearly ..to the tune of 15,000+

I know its hard for you to miss an opprotunity to bash bush but I think he was reffering to O'Reilly, and last time I check he didnt kill 15000 iraqis...unless it was from boredom while watching his show.

Either way this is getting a bit off topic, go back to the Billl O'Reilly and Anne Coulter bashing. I may be conservative but I really dont like those two.

 

[No Limit]

Whatever. You let people like John Kerry get away with comitting atrocities and Clinton dodging the draft, but when any conservative makes a mistake you pople won't let go, even when given the facts.

:dozey:

Funny, everytime you struggle in a debate you bring that up even though I already discredited that 10000000000 times.

 

[Bodacious]

Hahah, Kerry didn't 'get away' with shit. He admitted everything.

And was still almost elected president. If Bush had done those things and admitted them what do you think would be the result?

 

[bliink]

( she is pretty hot )

God, you guys are...weird... she's like.. a hard faced ice queen.

 

[Bodacious]

:dozey:

Funny, everytime you struggle in a debate you bring that up even though I already discredited that 10000000000 times.

Uhuh, keep telling yourself that. All you do is misrepresent facts.

I am not leaving this debate 'cause I am wrong. I am leaving because you continue to misrepresent facts and only use the ones that fit your agenda.

 

[CptStern]

I know its hard for you to miss an opprotunity to bash bush

if that's the least he gets, he'll be let off easy ...bush is just a figurehead ..I use the term "bush" to mean the whole administration

but I think he was reffering to O'Reilly, and last time I check he didnt kill 15000 iraqis...unless it was from boredom while watching his show.

could be, I'm too lazy to check so I'll take your word for it

Either way this is getting a bit off topic, go back to the Billl O'Reilly and Anne Coulter bashing. I may be conservative but I really dont like those two.

I think anyone who's at the very least a reasonable human being thinks those 2 deserve a special place in hell for the hate they promote ...O Reilly is the type of person that inspires violence in good decent people ..I'm a pacifist but I'd really like to feed him my fist :E

 

[Tr0n]

God, you guys are...weird... she's like.. a hard faced ice queen.

Sorry bliink...Someone was gonna say it sooner or later. :naughty:

 

[Absinthe]

I am not leaving this debate 'cause I am wrong. I am leaving because you continue to misrepresent facts and only use the ones that fit your agenda.

So...

Does that mean +1 for the Lefties?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

And was still almost elected president. If Bush had done those things and admitted them what do you think would be the result?

Well, he'd have to have gone to vietnam to have done that.

But since he is already violating international rules of warfare, and you support him anyways, I guess you would think no less of him. Plus, he's the one giving orders. Kerry was following them, like most of the soldiers. Only he was one of the few who spoke out. So I consider him to be above average compared to other vietnam vets.

Don't you support the troops???


Edit: and just saying "misrepresenting facts" as a conclusion doesn't mean you actually made an argument.
You have failed to refute anything said here, except for a date that Limit already said wasn't certain. You certainly haven't proven "misrepresentation".

All you've done is quit.

 

[Sainku]

So...

Does that mean +1 for the Lefties?

Good going, you 4 managed to bring down one of the worst arguments I have ever heard.

 

[Absinthe]

Am I the only one that thinks Ms. Coulter just needs a good humping?

 

[Tr0n]

Am I the only one that thinks Ms. Coulter just needs a good humping?

No...no your not. :naughty:

 

[Absinthe]

Alright! Threesome!

I mean... I'm gonna go take a cold shower now.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Good going, you 4 managed to bring down one of the worst arguments I have ever heard.

Two, actually. Remember the Canada thing?

And now there's this "you may be right... but Kerry is a criminal!" argument* that's going the way of the dinosaurs too.

*and I use the term loosely

 

[Bodacious]

Kerry was following them, like most of the soldiers.

No Limit tried to say the same thing, only when he was shown the article of the UCMJ that says every soldier has an obligation to refuse unlawful orders he was silent.

Edit: and just saying "misrepresenting facts" as a conclusion doesn't mean you actually made an argument.
You have failed to refute anything said here, except for a date that Limit already said wasn't certain. You certainly haven't proven "misrepresentation".

All you've done is quit.

Uh huh. Only taking two months out of a census bereau report and using that as a basis to bash a conservative isn't misrepresentation of facts? What about the rest of the months?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

No Limit tried to say the same thing, only when he was shown the article of the UCMJ that says every soldier has an obligation to refuse unlawful orders he was silent.

Good for you, however you haven't shown it to me, or anyone in this thread. And that would only be one fact, not plural facts.
Like I said, though, most every vet did similar or worse things, or at least did not report them. From McCain to Powell, who participated, if I remember correctly.

So, out of all tens of thousands of soldiers, you are singling blame out for Kerry, who acted the better than most of them.

Also, you are more outraged over a minor player in a war crime 30 years ago, while also being in full support of a man committing large-scale warcrimes right now.

I don't condone what Kerry did, but it's 30 freaking years ago, and he acted better than many other people who are nonetheless held in high regard.

But just picking-and choosing small old warcrimes while ignoring big current ones all in the name of punditry is extremely lame.

Uh huh. Only taking two months out of a census bereau report and using that as a basis to bash a conservative isn't misrepresentation of facts? What about the rest of the months?

Did the numbers go down by billions? No. Lie. Paris Buisiness review? Lie. What you are supporting is damage control, and faulty damage control at that.

So he left two months off? So what? Adding them doesn't prove your point. Even with them, O'Rielley is still wrong.
And everyone else is presenting confirmatory sources that you are largely ignoring.

You 'corrected' one point of a massive argument, and are still wrong. Hooray?

 

[Bodacious]

Good for you, however you haven't shown it to me, or anyone in this thread. and that would only be one fact, not plural facts.
Like I said, though, most every vet did similar or worse things, or at least did not report them. From McCain to Powell, who participated, if I remember correctly.

So, out of all tens of thousands of soldiers, you are singling blame out for Kerry, who acted the better than most of them.

Also, you are more outraged over a minor player in a war crime 30 years ago, while also being in full support of a man committing large-scale warcrimes right now.

I don't condone what Kerry did, but it's 30 freaking years ago, and he acted better than many other people who are nonetheless held in high regard.

But just picking-and choosing small old warcrimes while ignoring big current ones all in the name of punditry is extremely lame.

My point is, liberals have selective memory when it comes to supporting ideals. Clinton was a draft dodger and was elected twice. Bush can be considered a draft dodger and he is equated to Hitler. John Kerry self admittedly comitted war crimes yet he was almost elected president. But oh noes! O'Reilly made a mistake on citing a source and even when he is right about the figures he is still bashed.

 

[jondy]

My point is, liberals have selective memory when it comes to supporting ideals. Clinton was a draft dodger and was elected twice. Bush can be considered a draft dodger and he is equated to Hitler. John Kerry self admittedly comitted war crimes yet he was almost elected president. But oh noes! O'Reilly made a mistake on citing a source and even when he is right about the figures he is still bashed.

Aren't you a little off topic?

You already lost the argument. Drop it like an adult.

 

[Tr0n]

Aren't you a little off topic?

You already lost the argument. Drop it like an adult.

The topic went off topic once I said anne coulter was hot.

 

[qckbeam]

People who simply cannot admit when they are wrong make me laugh.

And Ann Coutler is NOT in any way hot...no......just no

 

[Javert]

Anne Coulter is pretty stupid...shes hot, but stupid.

She's far from hot. And for every somewhat intelligent comment she brings forth (like her books that actually give her time to think), her rhetoric and hot-headedness gets in her way and she starts spewing stupidity like a cretin.

 

[Tr0n]

People who simply cannot admit when they are wrong make me laugh.

And Ann Coutler is NOT in any way hot...no......just no

Just because she is republican doesn't mean shes ugly.

You need taste boy.

Me wub you long time. :naughty: