Paydirt! Dumbest political column ever..by Canada's own Rachel Marsden

Again, your entire diatribe is based on subjective opinions and hatred you have for those people.
Just once, I would like to see your and Fen post this on the board: "I heard what someone said or read what they wrote. I disagree. I think they're wrong, and here's why."
Instead, it's "I think they're wrong because they're drug addicts, psychos and liars." Even if those characterizations were true, it skirts the fact that you can't debate on the facts. Always, always, it goes to name-calling, which is something most of us get over by the fifth grade.

So let's take your charges, for example:
Feel free to show an O'Reilly lie he made on the air. More than likely, he has his interpretation of something, and you have yours. But since those sides are going to be at odds, you're going to scream: "liar."
To the best of anyone's knowledge, Rush has kicked his addiction to pain-killing drugs. The hypocrite part? Well, that's just your code word for the guy who doesn't agree with you.
And last time I checked, criminal harassment doesn't automatically get you committed to the nut hatch. I wouldn't ask her out, based on that, but that's a long way from "psycho."
And as far as "none of them would recognize a fact," well, that's because they won't recognize the facts as you see them.

Charlatan is another liberal code word for people who have the utter audacity not to agree with you.

That was a very nice try. But every time you and Fen post, you prove my point: you're immature, bitter people because the world won't kowtow to your point of view.

 

Yes, anyone who has been addicted to drugs is technically an addict, and they would tell you that. But you throw around that term to indicate someone still taking the drugs and under the affect. It all boils down to another insult you heave at someone you disagree with. Why don't you argue the issues, instead of name-calling? Are you remotely capable of that? Is it impossible for you to have a civil conversation without falling back to your kindergarten recess days?

 

No.
He's a drug addict because he's a drug addict. His day-job requires him to pass moral judgment on his betters, often based on their personal failings. He makes big money entertaining his audience by doing so. For that reason, he deserves to have his pill-gobbling thrown in his face at every opportunity. Thing he's made his amends to people yet? Please.
And when O'Reilly engaged in the following dialogue with which our Canadian brethren are familiar, and did so on his TV show...

O'REILLY: Now if the [Canadian] government -- if your government harbors these two deserter [sic], doesn't send them back ... there will be a boycott of your country which will hurt your country enormously. France is now feeling that sting.
MALLICK: I don't think for a moment such a boycott would take place because we are your biggest trading partners.
O'REILLY: No, it will take place, madam. In France ...
MALLICK: I don't think that your French boycott has done too well ...
O'REILLY: ...they've lost billions of dollars in France according to "The Paris Business Review."
MALLICK: I think that's nonsense.

...he was telling a demonstrable lie. The Paris Business Review doesn't exist and, therefore, was very unlikely to have published anything about the effect of the mighty boycott.

 

Broken, meet record.

 

Nice retort.
You asked for a lie O'Reilly told in public and I gave you one. Actually, two.
Can we talk about why he's masturbatory pervert who presumes to sell children's books now?

 

Battle of the Titans!

 

This is a high quality catfight, I must say. Very entertaining.

On the one side, we have two very liberal people who will denounce anything any conservative says, as Hondo correctly points out. On the other side, we have a very conservative person who will denounce anything these two liberal people say. Which, in essence, means they all do the exact same thing.

Hondo, look in the mirror there. You're no different then they are, just on the other side of the decimal point.

But do carry on, all of you. This is great fun.

 

And of course you know that for a fact. Are you now an authority on the onastic habits of Mr. O'Reilly?
And I'm not saying the man never lied. Have you? I'm merely asking you if you can debate any issue -- any issue, with any person -- without falling back on name-calling.

 

Does this not constitute a lie Hondo? He made up a fictious magazine

 

Big difference: When I disagree with a liberal writer or commentator, I don't really care what their personal life is like, and I don't call them every name in the book. For example, when JR and Fenian refer to Rush as a drug addict, I could mention that the liberal literary icon of the 1960s and 1970s, Hunter Thompson, was a drug addict who never bothered going through recovery.

When I disagree with Ted Kennedy on an issue, I really don't care about his checkered personal life, and that of his son.

Rosie O'Donnell? Bill Maher? Sean Penn? Tim Robbins? Susan Sarandon? Think their personal lives and habits are squeaky clean? I don't care. I think they're wrong no matter how much drugs, boozing, fighting, womanizing, etc. are in their pasts.

Let's talk issues. That's what this board is about. Let someone post something and make a comment. Someone else makes another comment, pro or con. The debate goes back and forth. It's healthy and by the way, you can't do this in China, Cuba or Iran.

But the fourth-grade name-calling? It gets old and gives me even more reason not to put an ounce of store in that person's stance.

 

I'm not. But Ms. Mackris is.
And under oath, too.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris17.html