ACLU Post Series, Part 3: Don't Hate The Players, Hate How They Play You In Order To Up Their Ratings And Pad Their Wallets
In this issue, we will meet a few of the holiday-loving fellows who have helped perpetuate the myth of the anti-Christian ACLU. Please keep in mind that this is the shortest of short lists, and I didn't even bother including Daddy Dobson's bio because we all know he's got his fingers in everybody's pie.
Jerry Falwell
The Rev. Jerry Falwell has ever been one of the most vocal opponents of the ACLU, even going so far as to blame the ACLU for September 11, 2001. What you won't hear from Falwell is how the ACLU joined a lawsuit filed by Falwell, which successfully attacked a provision of the Virginia Constitution that banned religious organizations from incorporating.
You also won’t hear how the ACLU of America’s Godless Fag Capital (Massachusetts) defended students who were suspended for distributing candy canes with religious messages. World Net Daily (a Christian news source favored by our own Citizen F) featured an article about this case that was written by Falwell, in which he wrote, "students have just as much right to speak on religious topics as they do on secular topics – no matter what the ACLU might propagate.” Falwell must have somehow missed the fact that the ACLU filed a brief in support of the students, as well as the fact that the students' suspensions were lifted because of a call from the Massachusetts ACLU.
Pat Robertson
When Pat Robertson's American Center For Law and Justice won the Supreme Court case of Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, Robertson celebrated the Court's decision by going on his national TV show (The 700 Club) and proclaiming it a victory over the ACLU. Kind of a funny thing to do, considering that the ACLU was on Robertson's side, and had filed a 15-page brief on behalf of Lamb's Chapel.
But Robertson wasn't alone in his error, since the Alliance Defense Fund (we'll learn more about them in the next issue) printed virtually the same lie about a case in which another Christian club sought to hold meetings in an LA public elementary school; the ADF gloated that their victory would doubtless cause "gnashing of teeth at the ACLU," despite the fact that the ACLU has always strongly opposed viewpoint discrimination (a stance which the ACLU conspicuously demonstrated in the Lamb’s Chapel case). Yes, there sure must have been a lot of teeth-gnashing when those Satanists at the ACLU heard that a court ruled in favor of a long-held ACLU position…
Bill O’Reilly
I don’t think it’s worth my time to list the number of lies and insults thrown at the ACLU by Bill O’Reilly. Media Matters has a tidy list of O'Reilly's lies for anybody with the stomach for that kind of reading. O’Reilly’s fabricated War On Christmas is just another example of the dishonest, divisive, and laughable smut peddled by a pitiful, malingering sexual predator. The only reason I list O’Reilly’s name here is to emphasize that this is the level at which the ACLU-haters operate. The Falwells, the Robertsons, the O'Reillys of America. These are your proud soldiers of Christ, standing strong against the heinous forces of American civil liberties.
I'll give just one example of this insanity, and it will also give me a chance to do something I seldom get to do: give props to the Catholic Church. I give credit where credit is due, and the Catholic Church has, thus far, shown the good sense to leave this stupidity to the crazy evangelicals. But Bill O'Reilly ain't having none of that, and he's now comparing the Catholic leaders' indifference to his invented "war" on Christmas to their silence on the pedophilia scandals within the Church. I'm serious. O'Reilly thinks his personal publicity stunt is as important as little children being raped, and he's pissed that the Catholics aren't playing along.
Up next: a special issue on the Alliance Defense Fund and World Net Daily!
15 Comments:
Do you believe that MM has never misrepresented facts about Bill O'Reilly? If I were able to find instances where they have misrepresented his statements would you renounce their credibility as I've renounced that of WND?
CF
CF:
I don't care if the MSM mas misrepresented facts about Bill O'Reilly, because I base most of my evaluation of him on direct quotations from his radio and television programs, taken (in context) from official transcripts. I take him at his words, as it were.
But hey, if you can find ABC lying about Bill O'Reilly, go right ahead and show us.
I don't feel compelled to chase after ABC. As for MM and the like, as long as you don't care if they've misrepresented facts, it is acceptable for you to present whatever sources you like, no matter what their biases. If you feel comfortable using proven liars as your sources then by all means do so. I find it delightful.
CF
CF:
Is it even worth my time to ask you to put up or shut up (again)? If you feel that MM has lied or misrepresented, SHOW US.
Also, if you want people to stop treating you like an idiot child then I would suggest you not resort to the playground copy-cat game. It's a bit silly to whine about your poor, slighted credibility when you're going around acting like a sulky third-grader.
I guess you're right. Even a third-grader would notice the obvioius similarity between the two situations and even a third-grader would have been able to express that similarity so plainly. I'm not looking for an apology, but I have trouble understanding why you would spend your time insulting me for using sources I don't necessarily trust when you are willing to do the same thing. There is no worse source for anti-O'Reilly information then MM. Even Franken is more honest and credible. Here is one example:
On the MM, they have a headline that reads: "Secular City? O'Reilly falsely claimed "people from India own Circuit City""
When you dig down and finally get to the transcript, you find that O'Reilly never made such a claim. A caller asked him to go after Circuit City so that they start saying "Merry Christmas" the same way he went after Target. He JOKINGLY (chuckling while he said it) responded "I think people from India own Circuit city." Not only does the transcript contradict the headline, the transcript didn't say he was chuckling when he said it. It was clearly sarcastic. He was joking. MM choose to mislead its readers.
MM also refers to O'Reilly as "a former host for the tabloid-style news program Inside Edition" Tabloid-style? If you go to the Inside Edition website, you will find the list of awards they have won for journalism, including some of the most respected awards in the industry. Calling it tabloid-style is not only unfair, misleading and untrue, and it's meant to trivialize and misrepresent O'Reilly's bio.
On another instance, MM's headline read, "O'Reilly falsely claimed that "spiritual" Christmas stamps are no longer being offered". What actually happened? A caller told O'Reilly that there were no Christmas stamps this year and O'Reilly responded, "I think it's the first time in my lifetime that the United States Postal Service has not had a spiritual stamp for people like you who would like them." He didn't make that assertion, he said he thought it was true. He didn't present it as a news story or come on the air pronouncing that it was true, he just told the caller he thought it was true. Was he wrong? Apparently. Without the words "I think" it would look pretty bad. That's why MM omitted those words from their headline and their summary.
One more, than I'll wait for a response:
"O'Reilly again falsely claimed Geneva Conventions apply only to "uniform[ed]" soldiers "fighting for a recognized country""
According to THEIR transcript, this is flatly untrue. In response to a caller's question about Geneva conventions, O'Reilly asked his guest, Lis Wiehl, "You gotta have a uniform on, and you've gotta be fighting for a recognized country to get the protections, correct?"
They didn't even quote a statement, they quoted a question. I didn't research the other instances that warranted the "again", but this instance is just a lie. He made no such statement, he simply asked a lawyer a question and she responded. As a side note, the MM didn't prove that Lis Wiehl's response ("Absolutely. That's right.") was inaccurate either. They posted several rights granted to citizens of countries that are at war, none of which mentioned non-uniformed soldiers, insurgents, gorilla fighters not fighting for a country or individuals breaking laws, as their headline suggests. I guess you could call this a double-lie.
CF
I only read the last sentence of that, but gorilla fighters are the biplanes that killed Kong. Guerilla, from the Spanish word guerra (war), are soldiers that conduct hit and run campaigns. It comes from the insurgency that drove Napoleon's brother out of Spain, proving that given time anyone can beat the French.
Ok, not the last sentence. The amount that shows up on the screen when it's scrolled to the bottom. And Author, your new security system constitutes discrimination against people with tired eyes.
Ha! You're right. Gotta love homophones. Just type it out how it sounds, right? If you could document how many times I've said "your" where I should have used "you're" I'm sure it would be hillarious. I will say this, though, you're eyes must not be too tired if your catching the use of the wrong homophone. You don't give yourself enough credit.
CF
Haven't kept track of that one. That one's a natural and common mistake that anyone could make. It's not funny, and I figure you probably do know that difference.
And I don't generally give myself credit, it seems like a silly thing to do. You know, your kind of thing. I'm sure we're both thrilled to have so little in common.
While I didn't recall the history of the word "guerilla", I did know that it was not the same as gorilla. Like it or not, that is one of many things we have in common.
CF
I "put up" evidence that MM has misrepresented facts and information. Am I going to get a response?
CF
Did I ever say MM hasn't? It's not my "source of news"; does it bother you even a little that you can make such obviously untrue statements and fool yourself so easily? Or is that a survival necessity? Do you have evidence that MM falsifies videotape of the O'Reilly Factor, or a theory on how lawsuit-happy Fox doesn't respond?
==Like it or not, that is one of many things we have in common.==
And I thought you were being nasty before.
Aleks,
ZDK said:
"Is it even worth my time to ask you to put up or shut up (again)? If you feel that MM has lied or misrepresented, SHOW US."
That's why I put up those examples. I was challenged to support my assertion that MM, like WND, is a terrible source of facts about O'Reilly because they consistently misrepresent the facts. I supported that position and am simply curious as to whether I will receive a response. If not, I am going to assume the point is ceded and that using MM as a source for O'Reilly "lies" is as equivelent to using WND as a source for anti-Christmas and anti-Christian ACLU cases. Hence, I will shut up about it and assume that my credibility is not "out the window" as a result of using WND.
CF
Reposted due to nonresponse: Do you have evidence that MM falsifies videotape of the O'Reilly Factor, or a theory on how lawsuit-happy Fox doesn't respond?
No.
CF
Post a Comment
<< Home