"Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit, before a fall." ~ Proverbs 16:18
My good friend, Progressively Moderate Liberal Sheila, has introduced me to a rather disturbing video. Actually, in light of the subject matter of this entry, I should perhaps refrain from the use of the word, "rather" in it's description.
One can find a link to it here.
MSN says O'Reilly lied. He did not. He simply got his facts backwards. He was mistaken. He was wrong. But he didn't lie. His biggest mistake was in not acknowledging his mistake and not correcting it. FOX News' mistake was also in not acknowledging and correcting the mistake.
This video is disturbing not only because it exposes FOX News Bill O'Reilly as undeniably mistaken, but because it exposes him as arrogant and stubborn.
Liberals will no doubt seize upon this video as further proof of Conservative lunacy, or even as part of the infamous "Culture of Corruption" but in fact it is merely further proof that many high profile people are so arrogant that they will actually insist, in the face of insurmountable evidence, that they are indeed right and the rest of the world is wrong.
How sad and pathetic.
When one allows stubborn arrogance and pride to get in the way of facts, it is time for some major attitude adjustment.
Much of the problem here is the decision by the FOX news network to attempt to sweep this embarrassment under the proverbial rug. And when you stop to give it some cursory thought, it is painfully evident that FOX news made a very stupid decision. Do they think that other networks do not have the technology to record the misreporting by Mr. O'Reilly?
I, for one, am embarrassed that Mr. O'Reilly and Fox news didn't have the sense to admit their mistake and issue a public apology the first time this happened, not to mention a second time.
People make mistakes. People understand facts backwards sometimes. It is part of what makes us human and not gods. It is not shameful to be wrong. It is shameful to be wrong and refuse, because of stubborn arrogance and pride, to admit that one made a mistake and apologize.
But before you Liberals convulse in laughter at the travails of one of your most hated Conservative pundits finally getting his come uppance, remember Dan Rather and Mary Mapes. Remember the numerous attempts by the New York Slimes to create sensational stories out of whole cloth, in a transparent attempt to bring down the President and his administration.
Yes, over the top arrogance and pride is not exclusive to the right side of the aisle.
And while I'm on the subject of arrogance, I swear that if I ever become a Liberal, it will be largely because of the arrogance exhibited by Conservative talk show host, Sean Hannity.
I was equally embarrassed by statements he made on his show yesterday about the misstatement by an apologist for Chuckie Shumer that Senator Shumer would like to put a bullet between the eyes of President Bush. Immediately after his speech, the man apologized, and rightfully so, profusely for that error in judgment. Chuckie accepted his apology. President Bush, although I haven't heard an official statement from the White house about it, has no doubt accepted his apologies, but not Sean Hannity.
Mr. Hannity had the audacity to ask his listeners if we should accept his apology. I find this highly offensive as a Christian. Mr. Hannity professes to be a Christian, yet he apparently has forgotten a very important tenant of the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Forgiveness.
I am rarely ashamed to be a Conservative, but this is one of those days.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
No, this is not a mistake. It is a lie.
It was a mistake the first time he tried to use this "documented fact" last year. His error was brought to his attention at that time. And yet he used the same ERROR as "documented" fact again. That makes it a lie.
Then he lied again the next night when he tried to brush it off saying he meant "Normandy" not "Malmedy" and sloughed off some claim about American soldiers shooting Nazi prisoners. He goes from "documented, on the record" to "some American soldiers killed Nazi prisoners" (which no doubt happened).
This "explanation" is another BLATANT lie.
Yes, Hannity could possibly turn you into a liberal. He makes O'Reilly seem encyclopedically accurate and quite liberal.
Wasn't O'Reilly the one who said he'd publicly condemn the president if no WMDs showed up and at some point admitted that this was the case? Has the condemnation and calls for impeachment come yet from O'Reilly (or am I getting him confused with someone else)?
Keith Olbermann is one of the stupedist, most deceitful, most hateful, most deliberately misleading talking heads on television -- if you can call MSNBC television. Test patterns have had higher ratings than his show. Of course, that makes him the darling of "progressives."
I agree that O'Reilly can be arrogant. But name a liberal who is humble.
I agree that O'Reilly can be wrong. His take on high oil prices is completely off-center.
But he is not dishonest. He corrected himself. Name a liberal who isn't dishonest.
This is just a case once again, of liberals despising anyone who disagrees with them. What else can they do? We don't have gulags -- yet.
Oops. As to the second part of your post, yes, New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi did apologize. But words mean things. If he said it, it means he believes it. Can you really imagine that leftists across the country wouldn't be dancing in the street like a bunch of Muslims if someone took Bush's life? And Olbermann didn't cut any slack when O'Reilly corrected his mistake (as if he actually cares that soldiers in WWII were maligned. What a self-righteous phony). Why should Hannity accept Hevesi's apology? He didn't apologize for thinking something stupid, he apologized for saying something stupid. And if you saw the reaction of the audience, after four years of liberal brainwashing, most of them thought the same thing.
LR asked:
"But name a liberal who is humble."
Jesus?
Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world.
He never thrust a scissors into the skull of a baby minutes before birth and sucked its brains out. Nope, I don't think he qualifies as a liberal.
Or maybe you're talking about someone whose name is pronounced hay'-soos.
Okay, since y'all aren't responding to the slander of Dems post two down from here, I'll bring it forward. At least two of you made accusations towards the Dems saying it was clear that they were more corrrupt than the Republicans. I provided a sampling of the Republican convictions and indictments and asked for some actual evidence of your accusations.
Nothing from you yet.
And so, in keeping with the theme of this post, if you can't prove your outlandish statement, then it's time to apologize for slandering people.
"I am rarely ashamed to be a Conservative, but this is one of those days."
Mark, Never, Ever, Ever be ashamed of being a Conservative, no matter which blow-hard Commentator claims himself to be, or what mis- statements or even outright lies the other side may manage to dig up on them.
Do not allow people who disagree with you about every single important issue define you.
Dan, Shut up.
Indictments are not convictions.
And I will point this out one more time.
The people that you are pointing to are being investigated by a REPUBLICAN Justice Department.
If Justice is done, it will be done by Republicans, over the screaming objections of the Democrats.
You, yourself said that you were no fan of Clinton, but he was the Champion of the Democrats for eight years, and the best that you guys could offer.
Now your side is pushing Hillary. (Don't tell me, let me guess. You are no fan of her either.)
No Thanks.
NEITHER SIDE has any claim on the "Culture of Corruption" handle.
Stop being a snot.
Tug, I agree with you. Neither side has a lock on the culture of corruption, or, inversely, both sides have a good deal of corruption to account for.
But I'm not the one making the accusation that Dems are more corrupt than Republicans as if it were beyond debate, that would be Mark and Mike (and maybe others).
I agree with you. Forget indictments. Let's look at the last two complete administrations and compare convictions. Unless I'm mistaken, it's something like 32 for Reagan/Bush and 2 for Clinton/Gore.
And you're right, I'm no fan of Hillary's and think it would be a worse mistake on the Dems part if they ran her than even Kerry was.
Mark,
That link didn't work for me. Something about software updating. I haven't been watching tv news lately, but I have a partial inkling to what you are referring to. I don't know the whole story (and am not for looking it up, at the moment). But I am guessing it has something to do with some comment about "excusing" Haditha because it happened in WWII, and a WWII vet taking offense to that. I know I have this all screwed up, but isn't it something to the gist of this? And it sounds like he had cited specifics that turned out not to be so, in slandering WWII vets.
I don't really like Hannity or O'Reilly very much. Hannity, as you pointed out at the end of your post Mark, seems to seize upon any kind of mistatements or "gotcha" moments, and then beats it into the ground and won't just let it go. He'll exploit whatever bone liberals give him, clamp his jaws around it, and will not let it go. So he ends up using his same talking points, over and over again. He does this all the time.
I find O'Reilly frustrating and disagree with him as often as I might stand in alliance with him. And I find him in error, quite a bit.
Going back to the war atrocity thing...
Just a story:
I had a client in 2004, who served in WWII in the European theater. I was talking to him about military service and possibly enlisting; and he began telling me about this one experience that still troubles him now and again...
He said one of their guys was dying from his injuries- a very young kid. And the soldier was crying, that his one regret is that he didn't get to kill a single Nazi, himself. So the other soldiers brought a Nazi prisoner before the dying soldier, put a gun in his hand, and allowed the kid to blow the prisoner's brains out. My client is haunted by that atrocity, but he said crap like that happened in war, and everyone kept hush about it.
I thought this was a good read, yeseterday.
I avoid both Hannity and O'Reilly.
I've got to be pretty bored to tune into their shows.
This will hurt O'Reilly--as it should.
Dan, I apologize for the tone of my last comment.
That was a little harsh.
My point is that I am sick of hearing about how corrupt Republicans are from people who continue to align themselves with the likes of Ted Kennedy and the Clintons.
The reason that there have been more indictments against Republicans than Democrats is that Democrats believe in using the Court System for political purposes, and Republicans don't.
Democrats demand indictments and investigations ad-nauseum into every single little allegation against their political enemies that they can dig up, while Republicans prefer to defeat their political enemies at the Ballot Box.
This is why Clinton was not indicted for selling Missile Technology to the Chinese for Campaign Money.
This is why Gore was never indicted for lobbying Bhudist Monks for Campaign Money.
This is why Harry Reid has not been indicted for using the power of his office to enrich his whole family.
This is why a Republican Administration has chosen the up hill battle of sending the defense of Marriage Act through the debate process and attempting a Constitutional Amendment rather than stacking the Supreme Court with activist Judges, and legislating Gay Marriage into illegality from the Federal Bench, the way that the Left thrust Legalized Abortion on Demand onto the American Public.
Once again, I apologize for my tone.
You did not deserve that.
That's very kind of you, Tug. No offense taken. Still, I'll have to disagree with you. You said:
"Democrats demand indictments and investigations ad-nauseum into every single little allegation against their political enemies that they can dig up, while Republicans prefer to defeat their political enemies at the Ballot Box."
And that's a bit hard to take when the Republicans spent millions of dollars trying to indict Clinton on a variety of charges, all of which turned up nil. It was Rove and the Republicans who've made a sport of the Questionable Allegation in campaign time (remember what they did to McCain - one of their own?! Not to mention the whole Swift Boating of campaign time...not that the Republicans are the only ones who do it, but they've certainly mastered it.
I mean, isn't that what Karl Rove is idolized for in many circles - his ability to cruel trick opponents out of commission?
Mark, no comment from you at all? I know that Mike from Mike's America has a screw loose and that he is basically an amoral coward and brainless buffoon (no offense, Mike - I'm just trying to engage in your discussion style; imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, you know) and don't expect much from him, but I think you are an honest person who is working for a better world.
Won't you either provide some evidence for your accusation (baseless thus far) that the Dems are more corrupt than the Republicans or apologize for mischaracterizing and slandering them?
Post a Comment