backtop

Print 121 comment(s) - last by iNGEN.. on Nov 24 at 5:35 PM
O'Reilly dishes out a dose of ORLY?

Bill O'Reilly, known for his popular Fox News program "The O'Reilly Factor," is quite a lightning rod when it comes to matters involving politics and social matters. This time around, however, O'Reilly is garnering attention for his comments on digital technology.

GamePolitics posted on their site a transcript of a recent airing of O'Reilly's "Radio Factor" in which he discusses the recent rash of violence surround the PlayStation 3 launch. "The problem with this stuff is that some people can deal with it constructively...but other people get addicted to it, just like opium, just like drugs and alcohol...So this is a big, big problem. It’s going to change every single thing in this country," said O'Reilly.

O'Reilly then dug a little deeper to say that youth who grew up playing video games were doomed to later be failures in society. "The skill set that is necessary to earn a decent living is being deemphasized in a fantasy world of football games and shooting zombies and all that...Now you have the "knows" and the "know-nots", because if you spend all your youth being prisoners of machines...you’re not going to know anything...You’re gonna fail."

Comments like these aren't new in the gaming world. Jack Thompson has long been a champion against violent video games and their effects on the youth of America. His most recent target has been Rockstar's Bully which was released last month.

But whereas Thompson's rants have been mostly relegated to violent video games, O'Reilly widened his net to wrangle other popular technology items including the almighty iPod.

"I don’t own an iPod. I would never wear an iPod...If this is your primary focus in life - the machines...it’s going to have a staggeringly negative effect, all of this, for America...did you ever talk to these computer geeks? I mean, can you carry on a conversation with them?"

For the computer geeks out there that can't carry on a conversation with anyone and just so happen to own an iPod, be sure to check out O'Reilly's Talking Points podcast.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Disagree with the man all you like...
By therealnickdanger on 11/19/2006 1:04:01 PM , Rating: 5
... but buried deep down somewhere in that overly-cynical jargon are valid points. Consider that more children today are obese than ever before. What they are doing with their time may be of importance to some, but it's what they aren't doing that is at the heart of the matter.

They aren't running playing sports outside. They aren't playing army with sticks for guns. They aren't catching "mad" air off a 6" homemade ramp. They aren't playing Marco-Polo in the pool. They aren't building certain skills and habits which lead to a healthy lifestyle. We can blame videogames, television, TiVO, parents, pharmeceutical companies, whatever, but the fact remains that these sedintary children will more than likely grow up to be sedintary adults with many health problems.

You know all those science fiction stories where you end up with a beautiful race living above ground with automated living, unknowingly supported by the "under-dwellers" who slave day in and day out? While we're not at that point yet, can you see the parallel with America's astounding quality of life and our ever-shrinking farming/manufacturing jobs? Over time, even more people will do the "dirty work" while we benefit with easier lifestyles.

Whether O'Reilly was going in this direction with his talking point, I don't know, I didn't watch the show, but I think there is validity in this.




By kmmatney on 11/19/2006 1:11:27 PM , Rating: 2
yep, I just pulled the plug on my kids...time for a healthier lifestyle.


RE: Disagree with the man all you like...
By Hare on 11/19/2006 1:54:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Consider that more children today are obese than ever before. What they are doing with their time may be of importance to some, but it's what they aren't doing that is at the heart of the matter.

Good point but I'd like to add one other thing. Recent studies have shown that the time kids spend with games is time taken away from watching TV. I'm sure games have a big influence but the general lifestyle is to blame. Not a single gizmo.


By milomnderbnder21 on 11/19/2006 3:19:57 PM , Rating: 4
I'd be interested in a study concerning how prone people are to obsessions in general. My feeling is that anyone who develops an unhealthy obsession with video games is more likely to just develop some other unhealthy obsession without them.


RE: Disagree with the man all you like...
By michael2k on 11/19/2006 2:43:54 PM , Rating: 2
Obesity has as much to do with the parents as anything else. If a parent lives an obese lifestyle, so will the kids. If that means driving everywhere, watching too much TV, and eating too much, then what else will the kids learn?

There is nothing "inherently" bad about video games or iPods, as he suggests; it is the lifestyle that focuses solely on those points, just like a lifestyle that only centers around fishing, or only around reading, or only around crocheting, that has problems.

If you cannot find a blame, then blaming video games and iPods are pointless. I still maintain it is the parents of obese kids that make obese kids (in general, not absolute terms).


RE: Disagree with the man all you like...
By Ringold on 11/19/2006 5:54:00 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, it's the parents, and he would be the first to pick on incompetent parents too. He can't just say the same thing over and over on TV however, he has to mix it up, be a little sensational. Another thing liberals might not take in to consideration when reading his comments in context: he has to make money, attract viewers and be entertaining to stay on TV.


RE: Disagree with the man all you like...
By poohbear on 11/19/2006 10:43:37 PM , Rating: 1
its hardly narrow-minded/anti-liberal to call narrow minded people "narrow minded". i'm calling something for WHAT it is. conservatism IS narrowminded. by their very defintion, conservatives "conserve" tradition, hence they're not very open minded to new ideas. Im not talking about the economical sphere of things, nothing wrong w/ fiscal conservatism, that's strictly economics, but in the realm of morality, ideas, science, can anyone disagree conservatism is a hindrence? Conservative thinking has istoricly ALWAYS been the cause behind persecution of different elements of society and the serious economical stratification of society, nobody here can deny this.


By rcc on 11/20/2006 2:23:25 PM , Rating: 2
Absolutely true. Such as the narrow minded liberal who is so busy making change and a name for him or herself that they don't consider what effect that change will have on society, or the people involved.

Conservative isn't narrow minded in and of itself, any more than my previous statement is generically true. It's the person involved that determines whether the policy/action/thought is narrow minded or not.

And your statement was decidedly narrow minded. IMHO of course.

As far as blaming conservatism on the woes of the world? Look in a mirror neighbor, you are at least half the problem.


Kind of agree
By kmmatney on 11/19/2006 1:09:54 PM , Rating: 4
I kind of agree. I have to admit, I was pretty surprised about all the hoopla surrounding the play station release - it's just a game console, that will be easily available over the next few weeks.

I just took away my son's game systems, and am going to limit the amount of time he can play games. I do see behavorial changes in him when he plays a lot of games, and they aren't good. I think it will be a detriment later in his life as well. When he's older he can play more, but at the moment he has no way of enteraining himself without his games, and it's pretty disturbing. I decided enough was enough and pulled the plug. Today, we're goig hiking...




RE: Kind of agree
By quiksilv3r on 11/19/06, Rating: 0
RE: Kind of agree
By bobsmith1492 on 11/19/2006 4:28:32 PM , Rating: 2
Ad-hominem to the extreme. If you have nothing to say, don't say anything. I guess I shouldn't have posted this, then. :P


RE: Kind of agree
By kmmatney on 11/19/2006 10:32:25 PM , Rating: 2
I'm gonna take a big guess here, and say you don't have kids. I'm sure I would have had a different attitude when I was younger, but when you have kids your attitude tends to change.

I have 3 kids, 8, 6 and 3 years old. My gave my 8 year old his first computer when he was 2 and then a GameCube when he was 6. He was given a Gameboy DS (I didn't like that idea, since he was already playing too many games). A few months back, he started spending way too much time on games. He would wake up at 6:00 AM and sneak down to the basement to play games, and I caught him playing games under his bed covers at 11:00 PM night. He wasn't getting as much sleep as he should, and was having a bad attitude in general. He once went into a crying fit when my three year old unplugged the Gamecube before he could save. He lost a total of 10 minutes of gaming!

He would also try to get out of doing other things with the family, thinking he can stay home and play games by himself. It's pretty bad when it's a perfect day outside, and you have to force your kid to play outside, as if its the ultimate torture.

So my wife and I decided to intervene - no games during the week, and a few hours on the weekends. We generally keep our kids active, and they do soccer, swim team, tennis, piano, etc... They all are thin, and smart and well above their grade levels. But I can already see the games changing the oldest one.

In any case, things have been better lately, and he was great during our hike. He actually has a great attitude when he gets enough sleep and is more active during the day.


RE: Kind of agree
By CascadingDarkness on 11/20/2006 3:42:24 PM , Rating: 2
I must say cheers to a caring parent. It was good of you to take action. I remember similar things when I was younger. Parents constantly yelling to go outside.

Here is a suggestion for little better parenting then I might have gotten. Just don't tell your kids to stop playing video games. Don't tell them video gaming is stupid and a waste of time (since you mentioned gaming I doubt this is your case, but for other parents in general). That is an opinion and nothing is worse then parents trying to get kids to do things by forcing opinions.

Be involved. Do things with them, don't just push them out the door. Make sure to ask them what they want to do (other then gaming). Show an interest in their life.

Nothing is worse then becoming a parent and not taking the time to get up and help them grow up right.

Personal Note: My dad to this day says gaming is a waste of time, but will sit and watch TV as much as I game. I personally feel gaming is better then TV because it is interactive and certainly helped sharpen my mind. Instead of him yelling to go outside and then crashing in his chair for TV he could have gotten up and asked what I wanted to do outside. That would have blown my mind. Maybe I would have had better feelings then the deep resentment I feel about my childhood now.

Moderation is the key to everything.


RE: Kind of agree
By kmmatney on 11/20/2006 12:40:03 AM , Rating: 2
I should also mention that I did not see the O'reilly show (don't watch much TV), so don't really know what to say about the show. My take is from things I've noticed myself in my own son. I have an Ipod, and don't see anything wrong with them.

I had an Intellivision growing up - the games weren't good enough to make you want to play all day, so things weren't so much a problem back then.

One vivid thing I'll remember is that, while getting my Master's Degree (UCLA Engineering), I was going to stay in my room and play Ultima Underworlds II, on a Friday night. My roommate had to basically drag me out to a party his work was having, and I really didn't want to go. I ended up meeting my wife that night, and would never have met her otherwise. Proof positive that gaming can be bad for your social life.

I certainly let games effect me too much, even in college. It sucked being tired all next day because I stayed up late playing Civilization, and alway thought I was about to win the game, and then realize was 3:00 AM!


RE: Kind of agree
By MilitaryTech on 11/20/2006 3:10:38 PM , Rating: 2
You waited for someone who has a media connection to say something negative to motivate you to do this?


What's that?
By MrSmurf on 11/19/2006 12:25:34 PM , Rating: 4
Did someone say something?




RE: What's that?
By Xeeros on 11/19/2006 12:42:50 PM , Rating: 5
What? I didn't hear anything...


Don't even get started on these people and their definitions of what is socially acceptable like rioting at a sports event is ok in their books yet the same for a one time launch event for an interactive entertainment unit is leading towards the end of the American way of life.



RE: What's that?
By Josh7289 on 11/19/2006 2:21:19 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know. It might have been the wind.


RE: What's that?
By creathir on 11/19/2006 2:43:46 PM , Rating: 1
I'm not a huge fan or Mr. Os... but to be fair... he has not supported RIOTING in sports parks. He is fairly consistant on his dislike for unruliness. Just my observations.
- Creathir


Moron
By Hare on 11/19/2006 1:01:28 PM , Rating: 2
Do you think he has a phone? What a hypocratical tech geek without a life. This is so ridiculous it's not even funny.

Kids should play with pinecones to be succesful!




RE: Moron
By ZmaxDP on 11/19/2006 1:16:31 PM , Rating: 1
"Hipocratical?" Is that supposed to have some relation to the Hippocratic oath? Or, did you mean hypocritical perhaps?

-I know, it was probably just a typo, but I have to give you a hard time.


RE: Moron
By Hare on 11/19/2006 1:51:55 PM , Rating: 4
I'm Finnish and english is not my native tongue. Thanks for the correction ;)

"hypocrisy"


RE: Moron
By Lazarus Dark on 11/19/2006 5:18:51 PM , Rating: 3
yes, we should stop using all this newfangled technology so much and we should definately watch less tv--oh, wait, he needs you to watch tv to pay for his nice suits and presumable nicer house than I have (it must be nicer since I dont have a house-I'm in a small crappy apartment. I guess as a result of all those 'useless' computer skills i have learned. If i knew carpentry I'd be rich!)


Gaming
By bobsmith1492 on 11/19/2006 2:04:41 PM , Rating: 1
This is obviously the wrong crowd for this message, but he sure may be right about the waste of time that is gaming. Imagine all the good things people could have done with the millions of hours spent on gaming. While you gain a bit more from gaming than just watching TV (some hand-eye coordination and problem-solving skills), there's really no benefit to yourself or society except that you're not doing anything more harmful like rioting or robbing stores.

Honestly, I think my parents did the right thing by limiting (at least trying to :P ) the amount of time my brothers and I spent on the computer. We really did find more interesting things to do and are more of a part of the physical world and less into virtual-land.

I also find it funny how people automatically call him "backwards." Maybe it was the Ipod comment, which I can see is not really necessary as you can listen to music while going about everyday business, but there's nothing backwards about wanting people to do something more useful with their lives than sit in front of the monitor all day.




RE: Gaming
By milomnderbnder21 on 11/19/2006 2:57:07 PM , Rating: 2
While to an extent I agree with you, I find your post a little distressing.

Yes, it is good to be productive, some people think so more than others. But people generally strive for leisure time. You work so you can make money so you may spend that money in a way that you enjoy, on your own time, in a non productive fashion. Video games are only one form of leisure activity.

What about reading? The millions of hours people spend reading things, be they magazines, sci fi romance or mystery novels, non-fiction, etc is time they could be out accomplishing more tangible things. So should we not read? Of course not, and you're not advocating that (I don't think, or certainly hope), but I use it to illustrate the problem with thinking that just because it isn't productive time, it's bad time.

Then again, I haven't played a video game since last spring, because I feel amazingly lazy now when I turn them on. Zelda Twilight princess may get me back into my evil slovenly ways though.


RE: Gaming
By bobsmith1492 on 11/19/2006 4:27:13 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, you're right. There are usually two extremes to everything. One could go and become a workaholic, driving himself to do everything humanly possible with the time he has, but kill himself via a heart attack at age 50.

I agree, there certainly is a time for leisure. I do like a good book every now and again, for sure.

I was thinking more about those that play >40 hours a week or that are so addicted they will kill people (literally, as one article here at DT shows) just to get the latest gaming system.

The key is moderation in all things.


RE: Gaming
By Holytrinity on 11/19/2006 9:11:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The key is moderation in all things.


This is very true.


How I use gaming personally
By goatbear on 11/19/2006 3:58:57 PM , Rating: 3
I actually saw the O’Reilly comments on TV, a show I don’t normally watch, but the fact that he was talking about gaming caught my interest. He came across as bigoted and reactionary for sure, but as others have already stated, there is some truth to the root of his statements.

This certainly isn’t true for all gamers, but gaming has definitely affected the way I interact with the world around me. I suffer from depression and (in my worldview) there are only a couple of ways to cope with this. Some where deep inside me I know that I want to let other human beings encourage and support me, but that’s not what I do.

Ever since junior high I’ve turned to games and books to escape the pain, to escape the how I feel about the “real” me. There is a direct correlation between how I am feeling and how much time I spend playing games. My problem has been that gaming only reinforces my emptiness; gaming/reading makes me feel better for a while and it’s also easy to do, but I know that I’m just escaping how much I hate myself. Gaming is not at fault for how I use it, but at this point I’m physiologically programmed to look to books and games to make me feel better.

I’m not saying my behavior is a product of the gaming itself; plenty of people are capable of just playing games for the fun of it. That said, I don’t think I’m the only person who uses gaming to escape. For those of you that say: “what’s wrong with using games to escape if it helps me cope?” I guess I just feel like there is something more, something deeper that could help me instead.




RE: How I use gaming personally
By bovinda on 11/19/2006 6:04:46 PM , Rating: 2
That strikes me as a very honest, well-thought-out response. I could relate with what you wrote, and I think it is accurate. Kudos to you, and best of luck in your search for peace.


RE: How I use gaming personally
By poohbear on 11/19/2006 10:23:48 PM , Rating: 2
goatbear, i sympathize w/ u but you would'nt be the best example of video games and escapism. if we removed videogames as a variable, another outlet would replace it. i.e., gambling, tv, or even more dangerous mediums to help you escape your episodes of depression.:( there is no deeper escapism as they are all superficial ways to forget about our problems. escapism never deals w/ the problem directly, so any medium used for this purpose will not help us. good luck to you tough, hope things work out for you.


Hello! This is me!
By Senju on 11/20/2006 12:55:41 AM , Rating: 2
Hello, This is me! I am a IT manager of a big company. I have a very successful daughter. I like going out on walks and enjoy the Outdoors. I am very happy with my life and would not want it any other way. All my freinds tell me I have a great life and successful person. :D

All, by the way,...I am a hard core FPS gamer. I love my ipod and plan to get PS3, Wii and X360. I create my own awesome high-end game PC. I love shooting those zoombies and I love to cross the reality line into games like Oblivion. I am going to play GTA tonight!
So what catagory do I fall in?





RE: Hello! This is me!
By kmmatney on 11/20/2006 1:28:19 AM , Rating: 2
I'm similar (sucessful, healthy, blah, blah, blah...) and play my fair share of games. However I don't know how I feel about my kids playing games, or watching me play games for that matter. I let my 6 year old watch me play Oblivion when a bear attacked me. The next day, he's telling my wife how "Daddy was attacked by a bear and hit it with an Axe and there was blood splattered everythwere". Ooops.


RE: Hello! This is me!
By Senju on 11/21/2006 11:14:58 PM , Rating: 2
That is a completely different issue to this topic. This OReily guy is telling us that we have a problem being gamers and doom to failure.


Thats funny
By Ecmaster76 on 11/19/2006 12:28:16 PM , Rating: 5
did you ever talk to this Bill O'Reilly? I mean, can you carry on a conversation with him?

He might actually hear what geeks say if he gave people more than half a second to talk before interrupting them.




Geek != Antisocial
By oTAL on 11/19/2006 12:37:15 PM , Rating: 2
I'd lie to have a conversation with this gentleman and show him who can outwit who. True I'm not a REALLY BIG geek... but I'm pretty geeky and i can still carry on varied conversations and I'm pretty sure I'd outscore him with the ladies...
I think that labelling geeks as antisocials is wrong. What sometimes happens is that antisocial people go geeky, since we tend to value what they have to offer. still, being antisocial is bad and maybe something could be done in order to support people who lack social skills and help them acquire some...




RE: Geek != Antisocial
By oTAL on 11/19/2006 12:38:16 PM , Rating: 2
lie = like

Sorry about that...


RE: Geek != Antisocial
By beepandbop on 11/19/06, Rating: -1
RE: Geek != Antisocial
By quiksilv3r on 11/19/2006 2:16:24 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see where anyone said that geeks talking to chicks means that they can get them. The person who started this thread stated that he can carry on conversations with people and get woman AS WELL.
If you weren't so focused on pointing out people's problems, maybe you'd be a better posted.
Yes, hypocritical, I know.


Old guy alert
By Randum on 11/19/2006 1:01:24 PM , Rating: 3
does he know what eBay is?
Did he know people were fighting over it so they could turn over a profit later?





RE: Old guy alert
By kmmatney on 11/20/2006 12:30:53 AM , Rating: 2
I can undertand the fighting over the consoles to sell them on Ebay. I can't understand the people paying over $2000 for them on Ebay. I heard they were selling for an average price of $2900 at some point - that's nuts.


he so crazy
By walk2k on 11/19/2006 2:38:12 PM , Rating: 5
I like Bill O'Reilly, he's a funny comedian.

Like Stephen Colbert.

Or Borat.




wow
By AxemanFU on 11/20/2006 11:42:05 AM , Rating: 2
Wow..I've never seen such vitriol for a guy. Let's be honest here. I bet 99% of posters have never sat down and read or watched extensively what he has read or commented on. I am willing to bet 95% of posters have gotten their information on O from third parties, and in particular third parties that starkly disagree with O. That categorizes it as uninformed and ideologically driven hate by association or hate by classification. Not very progressive or humanist at all. But post modern progressives are not into compassion. They are into competition for power and authority to order.

If you read his writing or view his commentary first person and for your opinion from that, I can respect it, but if you have been told editorialized generalities of what the man has said, filitered through the eyes and ears and minds of others, you are acting on a bias.

I'm a libertarian, so I'm as often at odds with O as agree with him, but I think it is small minded to disparage him by association or based on biased information. It's also small minded to not just criticize his views and dispute his arguments, but to also hate and disparage the man himself as a person. Leftist pogressives seem to be rather adept at hate when it suits their purposes or makes them feel better.




RE: wow
By patentman on 11/20/2006 12:10:47 PM , Rating: 3
I've listened to O'Reilly quite ab bit, and I can't say that I have EVER agreed with something he has said. There is no gray area with that man, only blakc and white, and that is not the way the world works.


To sum up Bill O'Reilly:
By knowyourenemy on 11/19/2006 1:05:18 PM , Rating: 4
I wonder...
By GDstew4 on 11/19/2006 3:40:42 PM , Rating: 2
what he does with his spare time. If it is purely spent bettering the world and expanding his knowledge well then perhaps he has a point. But if he wastes his time on things like fishing, stamp collecting, gardening, automobiles, playing an instrument, or any hobby for that matter, he may as well be stereotyped as doomed for failure as well...




RE: I wonder...
By TomZ on 11/19/2006 3:46:32 PM , Rating: 2
If you're trying to call him a hypocrite, good luck - after all, do you think he spends much time playing video games or listening to an iPod?


Suckers
By jmunjr on 11/19/2006 6:28:33 PM , Rating: 4
Fox is no less reliable a news/opinion source than CNN..

O'Reilly is a good entertainer whose opinions are intended to ruffle feathers and cause long discussions like this. It makes everyone at Fox lots of money.

So essentially anyone who has posted here, like myself, is a sucker of O'Reilly's attention getting tactics.

Anyone who believes any popular news source in print, radio, and TV is reliable and accurate is ignorant. They are popular because of money, quality marketing, and propaganda.




Us "computer geeks"
By SLEEPER5555 on 11/19/2006 9:02:23 PM , Rating: 2
computer geeks dont use ipods. some who think they are may use ipods but real computer geeks know that there is better and we refuse to give into buying an inferior product to be seen as cool.




RE: Us "computer geeks"
By CascadingDarkness on 11/20/2006 4:49:23 PM , Rating: 2
The future is here it's call SSD. 50+ hours play time? I second owning ipod proves you are no geek.


Are you serious?
By shorman on 11/19/2006 12:50:09 PM , Rating: 1
"Bill O'Reilly, known for his popular Fox News program "The O'Reilly Factor, is quite a lightning rod when it comes to matters involving politics and social matters."

Are you serious? You are in trouble if he is enlightening to you my friend!




RE: Are you serious?
By leonardotmnt on 11/19/2006 12:56:00 PM , Rating: 2
I think they mean he's polarizing, either you love him or you hate him. He's certainly not enlightening. I saw the O'reilly Factor For Kids in Borders one day and almost threw up I was so disgusted.


He should stick to what he knows best
By d4a2n0k on 11/19/2006 12:45:05 PM , Rating: 1
and thats his vast collection of dildos.




By TomZ on 11/19/2006 3:45:14 PM , Rating: 1
I think he did stick with what he knows best - social commentary.


Surprised?
By SteelyKen on 11/19/2006 12:51:52 PM , Rating: 1
He's on Fox. Did you expect any better?




RE: Surprised?
By KorruptioN on 11/19/2006 1:04:44 PM , Rating: 1
It's often called Faux News for a reason...


maybe...
By shamgar03 on 11/19/2006 1:39:39 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe his last question was as legitimate one. Maybe he truly doesn't know that computer geeks really are about the same as everyone else, and that we really CAN carry on a conversation, and perhaps with less BS than the average O'Rly rant/conversation.




i kind of agree
By filterxg on 11/19/2006 2:52:39 PM , Rating: 1
O'Reily is incredibly uneducated about this (and most of what he talks about) but his gut is right. I'm 24 and the other day I saw my niece 7yrs old at her bus stop. Everybody was standing there listening to their Ipods, or paying their video games. Not one kid was talking to each other. When I was a kid we'd be playing games of somekind that left us sweaty for school. That developed lots of social skills lost on today's youth. Kids rather talk via instant messenger or cell phones than face to face. I fear that the next generation will have more fat "comic book guys"




RE: i kind of agree
By Xorp on 11/19/2006 5:36:37 PM , Rating: 1
Seriously, why can't liberals and conservatives hate O'Reily together? Anyone with any common sense, regardless of party, should realize the man is a blittering idiot.


O'Liely
By ranmaniac on 11/19/06, Rating: 0
RE: O'Liely
By Missing Ghost on 11/19/2006 6:13:52 PM , Rating: 2
WTF are you talking about???


By Pwnt Soup on 11/19/2006 6:17:07 PM , Rating: 2
everyone take a step back and ck your bloodpresure, me O has point, but because of your political views you dont want too see it. our childeren are growing up in a very different socity then we grew up in, they are even more detached from "real life" then we were growing up. anyone can see this, but the effect is debatable. some will say its simple progression and the way of things, and others will see a breakdown of society. i beleive its somewhere in between. if you take everything pundents say at face value, you are being quite stupid. these people make a living trying too make people think, and think differently then they would normaly, weather its rush, savage, mr O or any other pundent/comemtator. its out job too realize they say things for effect, not literal interpatation. so befor you run around yelling this and that, realize here is someone trying too show parents and such that they need too look at their childerens habbits a little closer.
and befor you start on me, i'm neither a true consertive or liberal, i look at each isue befrom me with an open mind and judge it on its own merit, in otherwords I MAKE UP MY OWN MIND!




Oh boy.
By judasmachine on 11/19/2006 10:45:50 PM , Rating: 2
Oh boy he's sooooooo relevant. He needs to hook up Mrs. Gore.




Has O'Reilly ever...
By bcoupland on 11/20/2006 1:27:29 AM , Rating: 2
had the social experience of Super Smash Bros. with 4 friends?




Bill O'Reilly = moron
By afkrotch on 11/20/2006 2:29:12 AM , Rating: 2
Here's a prime example of it.

"I don’t own an iPod. I would never wear an iPod...If this is your primary focus in life - the machines...it’s going to have a staggeringly negative effect, all of this, for America...did you ever talk to these computer geeks? I mean, can you carry on a conversation with them?"

If they are computer geeks, it sounds like these "machines" have brought about a new skill for them.

"The problem with this stuff is that some people can deal with it constructively...but other people get addicted to it, just like opium, just like drugs and alcohol...So this is a big, big problem. It’s going to change every single thing in this country," said O'Reilly.

I don't think I'm interpreting this wrong. So far, from what he says, ppl who can deal with it constructively are the normal ppl. Then the ppl who get addicted to it, are well...the jacked up ppl.


"The skill set that is necessary to earn a decent living is being deemphasized in a fantasy world of football games and shooting zombies and all that...Now you have the "knows" and the "know-nots", because if you spend all your youth being prisoners of machines...you’re not going to know anything...You’re gonna fail."

Yet, many of these youths grow up adoring games, going to colleges to learn how to make games, and make six figure sums each year producing games.




What an idiot
By patentman on 11/20/2006 8:34:35 AM , Rating: 2
O'Reilly is a huge moron, even more than normal extreme right wing conservatives.

"O'Reilly then dug a little deeper to say that youth who grew up playing video games were doomed to later be failures in society."

LOL. I guess I am a "failure" than, what with my graduate degree, house, wife, and general feeling of contentedness. I should just shoot myself now and put myself out of my misery.

Seriosuly, who listens to this guy? Everytime I have heard him speak it sounds as though he just ate the worlds biggest BS burger with cheese for lunch.




Stupid old man
By Randum on 11/20/2006 12:26:13 PM , Rating: 2
You! YOU WITH THE iPOD!!! Listening to my podcast, you are an idiot..

Down with modern technology? Hey bud, I think you have a TV show? and you broadcast on a podcast??

and newsflash-ps3 = sellers on eBay, not addictive gamers.

Bill O'Reily you are a dumbass.




Awww...look...
By JWalk on 11/20/2006 5:49:10 PM , Rating: 2
...Grandpa rolled over and woke up in the magical "future-world". Where the darn kids have machines plugged into their ears and spend all their time staring at those new-fangled television whatcha-ma-call-its. It's the work of the devil! I tell ya back in Grandpa's day men worked hard all day and their women stayed in the kitchen. Them were the good ol' days. ;)




Computer geeks?
By JeffDM on 11/21/2006 6:03:11 PM , Rating: 2
I think the reason he can't talk to "computer geeks" is that they are smart enough to not talk to him. I really don't think he's in the news business, but more in the ass-hat clown business, hypocrisy and all, especially with his desire to amass followers to help shove his opinion and beliefs down the throats of everyone that disagrees. He's the kind of character that gets very adversarial, and incites people into an adversarial mood.




What?
By jager719 on 11/19/2006 12:28:53 PM , Rating: 1
O'Reilly is a tool




Another for my blacklist
By theslug on 11/19/2006 12:34:09 PM , Rating: 1
Along with Jack Thompson and Ted Stevens.




Hypocritical
By treehugger87 on 11/19/2006 1:54:18 PM , Rating: 1
Ipods are bad, i dont have one blah blah blah, oh by the way my show is available as a podcast at this website---poor o'Reilly




Go blame yourself, Bill
By borowki on 11/19/2006 5:26:56 PM , Rating: 1
O'Reilly totally misses the point. One can't deny that there are many dysfunctional youngsters nowadays. But they are the product of his generation, the baby-boomers. It's their lack of responsibility, their "it's all about me" attitude that are the bane of today's society. They were the ones who neglected their children. And when they did pay attention, it was still all about them. Instead of being actual parents, they wanted to their kids' friends. They wanted to be liked, they wanted the world to think them tolerant and enlightened, never mind the kids' upbringing.

And in true boomer fashion, when the consequence of their poor parenting surfaces, they blame someone else. It's always society's fault. It's the fault of evil corporations. O'Reilly does it even better here: it's all these machines' fault.




Damn....
By klingon on 11/19/06, Rating: 0
Bill O'Reilly? haha
By bokep on 11/19/06, Rating: 0
The unfortunate fact is O'Reilly is right
By cornfedone on 11/19/06, Rating: -1
By milomnderbnder21 on 11/19/2006 5:43:30 PM , Rating: 3
The only studies I've seen give no causal relationship between video games and violence. More like kids with problems revealed some of their problems when playing video games. Good kids stay good kids regardless of their video games.


He has a point
By Mclendo06 on 11/19/06, Rating: -1
RE: He has a point
By milomnderbnder21 on 11/19/2006 3:02:20 PM , Rating: 5
You seem to know many people who have ruined their lives through video games. If so, bummer, but I'm a little skeptical of what your criteria for 'ruined' may be. A 0.0 gpa is a good example for ruined. But all these other people?

Personally, I've heard of one kid that probably ruined his college aspirations through video games. But I personally know many more that responsibly balance work and play.

But I think it's too easy to just blame video games for destroying people's lives. I find it more probable that these people that develop these obsessions, and that do ruin lives through them, are simply more prone to obsessive behavior. If it weren't video games it could be drugs, TV, table top games, or something admittedly more productive like cancer research (unlikely).

Video games aren't inherently evil, dumb people can make them look like it though.


RE: He has a point
By Aikouka on 11/20/2006 11:40:34 AM , Rating: 1
I can't remember where I talked about this before, but the idea that whenever there's a physical problem that manifests itself, there's typically a mental problem that is the basis of everything.

I know kids that failed out at college when I was attending. I could say they were lazy or just played games too much, but I don't think that's the correct answer, but more or less the easy answer. I also know kids that played video games a lot and graduated with great grades. In fact, I was one of those kids... played World of Warcraft for 8+ hours a day, sometimes skipped classes if I didn't feel like going, was late to almost every class, slept through 90% of the classes for one of my courses and still got honors and awards for my academic prowess. To go back to my first paragraph, I know that I have an underlying problem that caused me to play games so much and essentially not care about anything (that was the problem, not playing games too much. Games kept me from being really bored :P), but trying to figure out what exactly causes it has proved to be much harder to figure out.


RE: He has a point
By kkwst2 on 11/19/2006 3:27:02 PM , Rating: 5
People were finding ways to get 0.0 GPA's and ruin their lives way before video games. This is the problem with anecdotal evidence. It's basically worthless. It doesn't show cause and effect.

I suspect that the "addiction" to video games was more a symptom of an inability or unwillingness to "buckle down" and study enough to get good grades. It was the available distraction.

If you'd like anecdotal evidence, I played a LOT of video games in undergrad and grad school. Still do. Probably more than would be considered healthy. I still maintained a social life, graduated with honors from a good university, obtained two graduate degrees and would by most people's accounts be considered fairly successful personally and professionally. All while at some points in my life playing FPS games for several hours per day. What does all this mean? Absolutely nothing, I would argue.


RE: He has a point
By Mclendo06 on 11/19/2006 5:10:20 PM , Rating: 2
I agree - video games are not necessarily the root of the problem for most people. Certain individuals personalities are typically going to be more prone to addiction than others. I too am a gamer, and will admit as an undergraduate in engineering at a major university that playing too many computer games probably cost me a few A's my first two years of school - although I have a much better handle of time management now. I also have an overall good GPA (anticipate graduating with honors) and a life outside of video games.

I'm not a psycologist, so I don't know the underlying issues at work, but I would venture to say that while video games can be the manifestation of deeper addictive problems in certain individuals, they are a part of that individual's problem as well. Recovering alcoholics don't go to treat some deeper psycological issue and then go hang around in bars trying not to drink. Alcohol is part of the problem, a trigger, for that indivudual. Video games, I think, are similar in that while they may not be the cause of the addiciton, they are still part of the equation.

Assumiung that video games trigger addictive tendencies for some some individuals and considering the total number of individuals who play video games is increasing, one may postulate that the impact felt due to the problems associated with video game addiction will also increase and have a greater effect on society as a whole. While I believe Bill O'Riley overstates this effect (it is his job to sensationalize), it is still an issue which should be considered.


what has conservatisim EVER done for this world?
By poohbear on 11/19/06, Rating: -1
By leonardotmnt on 11/19/2006 12:57:29 PM , Rating: 5
It's funny that conservatives always claim liberals don't like anyone unless they share their view point but if anything I'd say that's the conservatives view. Liberals are supposedly built on tolerance...


By ADDAvenger on 11/19/2006 1:25:22 PM , Rating: 1
Leonardotmnt: Both sides do it equally you know.

I usually find O'Reilly at least somewhat sensible, I had no idea he was a backwards old fogie.
Here's to hoping his statements were mischarachterized/out of context.


By milomnderbnder21 on 11/19/2006 3:18:00 PM , Rating: 4
Bill O'Reilly is routinely and intentionally offensive, and generally hypocritical and just plain stupid. He is one or two steps up from Anne Coulter and Michelle Malkin, the absolute bottom of the proverbial barrel.

If he ever says anything worth while I'm quite certain it's very much by accident.

He is a radical conservative that is not representative of mainstream american thought, or even the true conservative mindset. I am saddened that he is allowed to spew his nonsense on television.

Before I'm criticized for just saying things without any support, look at his nonsensical campaign re 'the war on christmas.' Also of note are his propaganda, generally with a complete lack of factual information, like his smearing of democratic political figures like Nancy Pelosi. He refuses to even be honest about the popularity of his own literature.

Not comprehensive examples, I know, but it is representative of his nonsense in general.


By stmok on 11/20/2006 1:35:44 AM , Rating: 2
To me, here in Australia, its just another reason NOT to watch FoxNews on PayTV. ;)


RE: what has conservatisim EVER done for this world?
By joust on 11/20/2006 1:42:16 AM , Rating: 3
Actually, I think quite a bit of us are missing the point here. Let's reconstruct what he's saying:
quote:
"The problem with this stuff is that some people can deal with it constructively...but other people get addicted to it"

Here he's saying that most people can handle games fine and that others take their passion too far. I'm not sure too many people would disagree with this statement.
quote:
...but other people get addicted to it, just like opium, just like drugs and alcohol...

OK, here he's likening excess gaming to other addictions. I think it may be an overreach to liken gaming "addiction" to drug addiction, but maybe the effects of such are similar. In fact, does anyone remember all the slashdot articles on WOW addiction? I don't think we derided ones like this: http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/20/...
quote:
"The skill set that is necessary to earn a decent living is being deemphasized in a fantasy world of football games and shooting zombies and all that...

Here he's saying games do not directly teach vital skills in the workplace. He's not saying games are DEVOID of such skills, but that they deemphasize them. What's so outrageous about that statement?
quote:
...Now you have the "knows" and the "know-nots", because if you spend all your youth being prisoners of machines...you’re not going to know anything...You’re gonna fail.

Here, presumably, the "knows" are the people who play in moderation. The "know-nots" are those who take gaming way too far. Is it truly unreasonable to say that those who spend all their time playing games might not know much about work? That those who moderate game-playing would have an edge over those who spend all their time playing?

How about jokes about the 30 year old who lives in their parent's basement? Those people DO exist! I would call that person a failure! There certainly are instances of that happening. I think O'Reilly is worried that as games become more compelling, there will be more "failures" in society who do not find work.

As much as some of us may hate O'Reilly, I would recommend looking to what he is saying and interpreting it with a reasonable mindset.


RE: what has conservatisim EVER done for this world?
By ET on 11/20/2006 8:33:24 AM , Rating: 1
Does playing sports prepare you to a productive life? Taking nature trips? Practicing with your gun?

I mean, sure, playing computer games doesn't prepare you for life, but put it in context. What he's saying is: it's worth than other activities. It makes you *less* prepared.

Did you ever try to carry a conversation with a deeply religious person or a sport fanatic? Can you carry a conversation with them? The answer is, if you have a similar interest they you can.

The point is, he goes against certain things without showing that they're exceptionally bad. As it happens, geeks tend to have quite good salaries, for example. You can find other good things to say about them.

I loved "the jihadists? They’re not playing the video games. They’re killing real people over there." So, I guess he's suggesting gamers should go out and kill real people, too.


By joust on 11/20/2006 10:43:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The point is, he goes against certain things without showing that they're exceptionally bad. As it happens, geeks tend to have quite good salaries, for example. You can find other good things to say about them.

You're missing the point. He's not saying games are the Great Satan and idle hands are the work of the devil. It's about opportunity cost, that is, the cost of not self-improving. He never said games were exceptionally bad. He said the loss of time (what he calls enslavement to machines) to be the terrible problem. Reasonably interpreted, he's simply encouraging you to game in moderation. Shocking.

Playing sports might not make you more prepared, but it will keep you in shape and make you healthier. Taking nature trips will keep you healthy and if you're an ecologist it might be a good idea. Rifle practice is a great thing to do if you're a police officer or in the military.
quote:
I loved "the jihadists? They’re not playing the video games. They’re killing real people over there." So, I guess he's suggesting gamers should go out and kill real people, too.

Yeah, I have no idea what he meant there. I didn't hear the show myself so I have no idea. I find the "..." to be suspect there, as it seems it was a completely different context, but you never know.

One last thing. Are geeks well paid because of or in spite of their gaming? Or perhaps it was drive/focus/intelligence? How can you prove it either way?


By vanka on 11/20/2006 2:15:43 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Does playing sports prepare you to a productive life? Taking nature trips? Practicing with your gun?

Let's tackle these points one at a time:

Sports
Playing sports keeps you fit while preparing you for life ahead by teaching teamwork, sacrifice, perseverance, and to take pride in your accomplishments. Video games can provide only a limited subset of these lessons.

Nature Trips
Keeps you fit and teaches you to respect and love nature; unless you become the main course for mosquitoes.

Shooting Guns
When done legally (no drive-bys please) and properly will teach you about safety and responsibility.


By SilthDraeth on 11/20/2006 1:47:14 AM , Rating: 1
Well there are some business that won't put Christmas up any more. And Target I believe won't let the Salvation Army bell ringers around anymore.

I like Anne Coulter, but never heard of Michelle Malkin.

I like Bill too, and if you really consider what he is saying, instead of taking it personally you can see that some of his points make sense as far as his comments on video game fan boys.

It was just a few days ago, everyone on Daily Tech was bashing Sony fan boys for camping outside of stores for weeks, and looking like 40 yr old couch potatoes that still live at home. But now that Bill O'Reilly says that being a video game fanatic will lead to failure as an adult, we all must attack him.

Thats what it seems like anyways.


RE: what has conservatisim EVER done for this world?
By CBone on 11/20/2006 8:56:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And Target I believe won't let the Salvation Army bell ringers around anymore.

That's true. For years, Target made an exception for the Salvation Army and no other charities. They decided that they should rightly follow their own rules regarding solicitation. Target is one of the most generous national chains and donates millions to various charities, humanitarian fund-raising, veterans causes, and schools every year. I don't like when this gets put out there and people think Target is greedy. Just setting the record straight.


By Spivonious on 11/20/2006 10:37:51 AM , Rating: 2
This year they did decide to uphold their rule about no solicitation for everyone though. So no bell-ringers. The bell-ringers collected $8 million at Targets last year. Target donated $1 million to the S.A. this year. I'm not saying that Target is greedy, just that they're pretty heartless.


RE: what has conservatisim EVER done for this world?
By Kanti on 11/19/06, Rating: -1
By Seer on 11/20/2006 12:27:11 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure, but I think you misread his post. IT was kind of confusing, but I think his last sentence is NOT sarcastic.


By Locutus465 on 11/19/2006 11:37:35 PM , Rating: 5
From a moderate who tends to lean more libral on most issues I have to say, well said. This is why I hate politics, honestly I don't think any one really has anything important to say any more. Just a bunch of wind bags on either side trying to stir up as much emotion as they can.


RE: what has conservatisim EVER done for this world?
By ZmaxDP on 11/19/2006 1:49:51 PM , Rating: 5
Bloody liberals. They like to pretend that conservatives are the only ones who are narrow-minded stereotypers. Of, course, it is acceptable to stereotype conservatives because then you're just stereotyping stereotypers.

Yes, we're against "progress" all around, except when it comes to building new highways, or promoting business growth, or... Oh wait, that isn't progress if you're liberal is it?

Seriously though, you do realize that our good Mr. O'Reilly isn't exactly the "average" conservative. In fact a very large percentage of conservatives aren't white heterosexual Christian males. Actually, in his case, white homophobic vindictive Christian give God a bad name egotistical prick who happens to be both male and conservative.

O'Reilly is an extremist. Plain and simple. Are there others like him out there? Duh. But, there are extremists on the liberal side too and I doubt you want them to be held up as the prototypical liberal either. The REAL problem is that a huge number of people like you, on both sides, choose to listen to the blabber of their own party without regard to the other side's opinion. You assume their argument has no merit because they are (insert political label here). Do you give their argument thought? No, it's wrong because they're stupid "conservatives". Therefore it must be wrong. Do you actually do research on the "facts" that either side is representing? Probably not. Or, perhaps you only research your own side oblivious to the point that it is easy to make almost anything seem like a good idea when you control the data that people receive. The only difference between you and a conservative label-caller is that you've bought in wholesale to the image that the Liberals present, instead of falling under the spell of the conservatives. You know what the irony of it all is? That neither party could survive without the other. Neither Party's goals or solutions can make anything better by themselves. By far the best Laws, Judgments, and decisions made by our government have been bi-partisan. There's a reason for that you know. As usual, the best solution is somewhere in the middle. I know, admitting that would mean that both sides would have to admit they don't really know everything after all, and that will never happen. It's easier to be vindictive and blame the other side when anything goes wrong than it is to find some of the blame on your hands too. Plus, it wins more votes because suckers like you fall for it, right?

Sorry, I'm ranting now. It just pisses me off when I get compared to some prick like O'Reilly when I have very little in common with him. Conservatism contains a HUGE range of people, just like Liberalism. Don't class me in with the extremists unless you want me to write a dissertation. I'm conservative because I believe in a limited government whose purpose is to protect people's rights. As such,

I am for Gay Marraige, Abortion rights, Gun control, and a lot of other issues to an extent. I believe that people have the right to choose their lifestyle. I believe that people have the right to choose their future, and I believe people have the right to feel safe and defend themselves. I don't think partial birth abortions should be legal. I don't think that anyone should be prevented from owning weapons unless they have committed violent crimes in the past. I think a 90 day waiting period to own a firearm is perfectly reasonable as I've yet to find myself in such a hurry to go hunting that I had to have a gun right then! I like to think think that any stereotype is inherently false when you are talking to any person. I have friends who are flaming liberals and friends who are radical conservatives. I disagree with almost everything they believe when it comes to politics. But, I don't think they're idiots for believing those things because I don't think I am any better than they are. I think that they have just as much of a right to think what they want as I do. Unfortunately, both political parties are getting off right now saying pretty much the opposite. And, it is polarizing our society. The popularity of people like O-Reilly is proof of their success. You want to change it, then start questioning the extremists on your own side and stop watching and listening to their shows. Stop voting for them. Elect and support people who are interested in doing the right thing instead of the "liberal" thing. Meanwhile, I'll do the same on my side. Maybe in 10 years if we're lucky people like this won't have the power and fame they do now and people in this country will actually respect each other's opinions even when they think that person is wrong. Probably won't happen though. You know why? Because doing that is difficult. It is a lot easier to listen to people you agree with and swallow their words whole because you like what they're saying. It takes effort, research, and time to try to understand an argument from all sides, and most people just don't want to make that effort. They prefer the easier way.

You know what I think the problem with our country is? We're all too lazy, myself included. If we don't change it, we'll find ourselves at the back of the pack in this world before we even realize it. We're already on the fast track there.

Sorry for the novel everyone, and remember, if you don't like it, just dismiss it. I'm a "bloody conservative," therefore I must be wrong.


By Tupolev22m on 11/19/2006 2:53:35 PM , Rating: 4
You are the kind of conservative that I can respect and vote for. Unfortunately, you have become an extremist in the movement of conservatism, and there are no conservatives up for election who don't pander to the far-right, which seems to become mainstream in the conservative movement. If all conservatives were like you, I'd look forward to debating issues, and even agree with you on many of them, unfortunately, most aren't.


By iNGEN on 11/24/2006 5:28:13 PM , Rating: 2
Conservatism was from its founding, remains to this day, and in concert with its very nature will forever be extreme. I'm proud to be a conservative.

More on topic, this may well be the first time I have heard something other than emotionally charged scrabble-speak come out of Bill O'Reilly's mouth. Go Bill! :)


By milomnderbnder21 on 11/19/2006 3:07:00 PM , Rating: 5
You are a 'moderate' conservative. Kudos, you have views approximately in line with the majority of the american public.

Sadly, conservatism is currently characterized in our government and in the pundit class by very much non-moderates. Examples are the presidential administration and Bill O'Reilly, respectively.

It is true that many liberals over generalize about conservatives, but I think it's a little hard to blame them when you look at the last few years of conservative leadership (and it's continued popularity with a distressingly large number of people).


RE: what has conservatisim EVER done for this world?
By ZmaxDP on 11/19/2006 4:34:36 PM , Rating: 5
I wasn't blaming liberals, but blaming everyone. I was blaming people who vote by party no matter what the issues. It was only in response to a liberal making the same type of comment both sides have been making for the past few years. It makes me sick to see that despite a vast majority of the American public having relatively moderate views we still choose to elect people that don't. I am just as guilty as anyone else, I voted for Bush. However, I voted split ticket in both elections under the premise that I preferred Bush to any of his opponents, and knew that if there was a large enough presence of democrats in congress that he'd do a good job as president, as he did a good job as Governor here in Texas. But, the vast majority of conservatives voted conservative across the board and we're in the pickle we're in because of it.

That's all...


RE: what has conservatisim EVER done for this world?
By creathir on 11/19/2006 6:26:06 PM , Rating: 3
As a Conservative (yes, true... far right conservative...)

I want to ask, WHAT leadership?
The only, and I mean ONLY reason the Republicans lost the house, was because they did not stick to their conservative views. They left them. Look at the GROWTH our government has had over the past 6 years. We have not had ANY conservative leadership. Sure there are some bones they throw the right every once and a while... but look at how liberal it has been. Prescription drug coverage?!?! All of the pork projects?!?!
What happened to fiscal conservatism? What happened to smaller government??

Every time conservatives have run as... conservatives... they win. Hands down. *cough* Reagan *cough*

It is a winning philosophy. Who wouldn't vote for less spending and less taxes, yet maintain a strong military for our protection? That is it. That is all there should be. People ask about funding embryonic stem cell research... how about funding NO stem cell research...

Let free markets take care of themselves. It has worked, and will continue to work, as long as government regulation does not get put in place of it.

As far as the positions of the moderate (How is he conservative? Other than to claim to be) above, these are just how he feels. In no way is he a "model conservative" because his positions are contrary to conservative beliefs.

Conservatives, believe in smaller government, but a government that protects life. Be it from abortions, from terrorists, or from crazies on the left who want to outlaw religion.

Our Constitution was setup to allow for only a really limited government, but over the years it has been turned into something that is never was intended to be.

(Oh, and to refer to the current administration as "conservative" is really missing the point as to why the Republicans lost the election earlier this month)

I... am a conservative and capitalist. I... am hated by many around here...

But I... share the beliefs of the majority of the nation.

Don't believe me? Go ask 100 people how many of them want a tax increase. I don't mean how many want an increase for population X or population Y, but rather a straight tax increase, for them.

You'll find out how conservative people really are.

- Creathir


RE: what has conservatisim EVER done for this world?
By Kanti on 11/19/2006 9:46:53 PM , Rating: 1
Total crock man, and you know it. Talk to 100 INFORMED people, as in people who don't get their information from people like Bill O, or from news-ertainment outlets, and you'll see they absolutely disagree with people like you, and know full well how dangerous people like you are to any society. This is a liberal country, founded on the basis of the commonwealth, the common good, of protecting everyone, not everyman for themselves, and not the selfishness conservatives promote.

Every zealot says that when their 'team' fails it's because they weren't extreme enough in their views or actions, they didn't give ENOUGH money to the rich for voodoo economics to work, they didn't bomb ENOUGH countries to make democracy flourish, they didn't create ENOUGH poverty for religious theocracy to take hold and spread 'morality' throughout the land. Ideolouges never own up to when their beliefs fail. Which is why they always fail, just as conservatives/regressives always fails in the end.

Modern conservatism is a FAILED ideology (it was NEVER a philosophy, just one of the many reasons it failed). Fewer taxes and less government are two opposite things, and work against each other, since people only realize the true cost of government when taxes reflect it's true cost (which is why we had a surplus under liberals/centrists, and an unimaginable debt under conservatives who still ended up expanding government, just saying they weren't really conservatives because they failed is a total cop-out). If you lower taxes enough to create deficits, government expands, even the uber-conservatie Cato institute reached the same conclusion.

And the Free market is just as much a load of crap. It's a myth, put forward by those who want to be free to abuse. Regulations in the market protect consumers, workers, and the environment, the people who pray to the god of the 'free market' just want to be rid of those protections so that they can make more money without actually having toimprove their product or service. A completely free market only benefits those at the top, everyone else would suffer until the entire market would collapse. An idiotic theory put forward to fool people into supporting the greedy, against their own best interest. It was NEVER worked, it has ALWAYS failed, which is why we have a mixed economy of capitalism and socialism, because both fail on their own.

This is a progressive country, that's why minorities have rights, that's why our economy works, that's why we don't have slavery, that's why women can vote, that's why our country hasn't collapsed through over exploitation of resources (yet). The people have spoken on this, anyone who thinks this is a conservative or regressive country is dellusional.


RE: what has conservatisim EVER done for this world?
By creathir on 11/20/2006 12:25:05 AM , Rating: 2
Ask the people of Natzi Germany how socialism worked...
Or how about the USSR...?

Wait... those political movements are no longer around...

- Creathir


By SilthDraeth on 11/20/2006 1:54:13 AM , Rating: 2
Creathir I knew you where a straight guy, you and I need to talk more.


By KashGarinn on 11/20/2006 3:27:13 AM , Rating: 2
Congratulations! you win the 'First-post-comparing-the-other-side-as-nazis' Prize. If you need to verify the level of your intelligence to anyone, let them know you won this very prize and remove all doubt.

K.


By iNGEN on 11/24/2006 5:35:55 PM , Rating: 2
You may want to brush up on world history. Socialism failed in Germany, for the most part, prior to all the events/decisions that made the Nazis villianous. However, I must digress, I've perpetuated the divergence of this thread from topic.

Sorry everyone. Kudos Creathir.


By joust on 11/20/2006 2:35:14 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
This is a liberal country, founded on the basis of the commonwealth, the common good, of protecting everyone,

That is correct.
quote:
not everyman for themselves, and not the selfishness conservatives promote.

That is incorrect. This debate has raged all the way back to the writing of the Constitition. The Federalists (those who wrote the Constitition) actually created a system whereby every man working for himself would ultimately serve the common good. The Anti-Federalists believed selfishness and the lack of community would destroy values and make evil men. Don't believe me? Read the FEDERALIST PAPERS by Madison and Hamilton (and a couple others). Read "What the Anti-Federalists were FOR" by Storing.
quote:
And the Free market is just as much a load of crap. It's a myth, put forward by those who want to be free to abuse. Regulations in the market protect consumers, workers, and the environment, the people who pray to the god of the 'free market' just want to be rid of those protections so that they can make more money without actually having toimprove their product or service.

There are certain markets that DO fail, and DO lead to monopolistic behavior and thus need to be regulated to improve equity. But MOST markets work rather competitively and thus benefit society.
quote:
A completely free market only benefits those at the top, everyone else would suffer until the entire market would collapse. An idiotic theory put forward to fool people into supporting the greedy, against their own best interest.

Actually, all parties join a market because all parties benefit. If they did not benefit, they would have to be coerced into joining. You may want to review your economics classes to see the areas of the supply/demand curves to see where consumers benefit.

Another interesting point is the "Liberal" versus "Conservative" divide. You must understand that there were "classical liberals" along with "classical conservatives." The constitution is classically liberal. Libertarians, who are very close to modern conservatives on quite a few issues, are classically liberal.
quote:
This is a progressive country, that's why minorities have rights ... that's why we don't have slavery,

Progressivism as a movement did not exist before 1890's. Perhaps you should brush up on your notes? Also, classical liberals and conservatives today believe in "blind" justice, the notion of equality through treatment, in practice and theory. The founding fathers were very uncomfortable with slavery, referring to it as the "peculiar institution." Lincoln, not a progressive by any measure, believed in putting slavery on the road to gradual extinction if at all possible. (He failed in this attempt and rather than persuade owners to give up their slaves, he made it illegal). Before you keep bashing conservatives, you should remember it was the REPUBLICANS who freed the slaves.

quote:
The people have spoken on this, anyone who thinks this is a conservative or regressive country is dellusional.

This is the classic fallacious argument. I think you need to realize that progressivism is hardly a resounding success. The most epic progressive projects: war on poverty, housing projects, urban beautification. Only one has worked. The people have indeed spoken, and progressivism is out the door as we speak.

The conservative mindset is equal treatment in process. The progressive mindset is equal outcomes. The conservatives favor the process as a means to the good end, knowing full well that the progressive bandaids alone cannot stop a gushing wound.


By retrospooty on 11/19/2006 11:08:52 PM , Rating: 2
"I am for Gay Marraige, Abortion rights, Gun control"

You dont sound too conservative to me. ;)


RE: what has conservatisim EVER done for this world?
By qdemn7 on 11/19/06, Rating: 0
By Gooberslot on 11/20/2006 1:13:48 AM , Rating: 4
I don't know about that. Would you really want no gun control at all? Would you want it so any yahoo off the street could walk into a pawn shop and buy an uzi with no background check or anything. I consider myself pro-gun but I definitely wouldn't want that.


By rcc on 11/20/2006 1:49:06 PM , Rating: 2
Define Gun Control for us.

If you mean eliminating availability to law abiding citizens, that's not gun control, it's abolition or prohibition.

I support gun control that does it's best to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally unstable people. So yeah, I don't like the waiting periond, but I can live with it. 2-4 weeks for a background check, fine. But as soon as you say no, you can't have this? You throw me right in to the anti-"gun control" crowd.

Oh, and yes, I consider myself quite conservative, about most things.

Think, don't react. It's amazing what it can do for your outlook.


By Seer on 11/20/2006 12:32:12 AM , Rating: 2
Excuse me???? Does anybody see the irony in the stereotyping that occurs in the first sentence:

"Bloody liberals."

immediately followed by

"They like to pretend that conservatives are the only ones who are narrow-minded stereotypers. Of, course, it is acceptable to stereotype conservatives because then you're just stereotyping stereotypers."

and later when he condemns labelling, which is what the post begain with!!

"You assume their argument has no merit because they are (insert political label here)."

Hmmm, construct your argument a bit better next time. I think that that first sentence was just a gut recation, though, so I'll forgive you ;)


By CascadingDarkness on 11/20/2006 3:04:46 PM , Rating: 2
First I can only hope you are running for president.

I also am glad I'm not the only person who just hates people who blindly vote a straight ticket. I mean half the time they don't even know who they voted for, what that guy stands for. They just look for the (R) (D). I could care less who you vote for, as long as you know who you’re voting for.

Here I thought I was only one of a handful of people in the world who realize opinions are opinions. If they weren't they'd be called facts. Most people get this confused, or they somehow feel that, them being a human being and prone to mistake, they are always right.

I wish more people would take the time to realize there are 6 billion people around you. While you can only see what's in front of you; it would be a good idea to take the time to see things from other angles, as some one else may see it. It couldn't hurt to respect other people’s opinions even if you don't agree with them.

We're human; I am made of the same squishy meat as all of you.


RE: what has conservatisim EVER done for this world?
By bobdelt on 11/19/06, Rating: 0
RE: what has conservatisim EVER done for this world?
By jarman on 11/19/2006 5:34:04 PM , Rating: 5
Try again troll. I am conservative and I find O'Reilly usually lacking a backbone and content with riding the fence in order to drive the rating up. O'Reilly doesn't have the balls to speak for conservatives. He's a tool for the media machine.


By creathir on 11/19/2006 6:13:50 PM , Rating: 3
Bingo.
- Creathir


By montgom on 11/19/2006 6:13:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
bloody conservatives. I swear their narrowminded thinking would have us all back in the dark ages w/ no technology, just worshipping god blindly and "conserving" cultural norms. It's like they're AGAINST progress.


My god, you sound just like Bill, but instead of bashing a group because they use an ipod, you bash a group because they are conservative. Sounds like a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

Is every ipod user an idiot? Are all "conservatives" the same? According to you and Bill, they are.
Bob


By LtFarva on 11/20/2006 7:32:13 AM , Rating: 2
You are giving in way too much into todays partisan politics. That's all it is today, completely partisan, totally left or totally right. There's no room for moderates, no room for a third party, and it's hurting the country. Most people aren't so extreme, just look at all these other posts.

And, no, I never understand whatever comes out of O'Reilly's mouth. I think Steve Jobs should send him an iPod preloaded with Metallica or something.


By rushfan2006 on 11/20/2006 11:30:11 AM , Rating: 2
Well I think Bill O'Reilly is a horse's ass personally....however I fail to see a single person's comments suddenly speak for all conservatives. That's like saying one member of a race speaks for all, one bad cop speaks for all cops (even the good ones), etc....

As far as political leanings...I'm neither a dem or repub, I'm registered independent I do have conservative leanings more than liberal. And I tell you that to be honest, and straightforward.

As for the comment "blindly follow God"....I believe in God...and I assure its certainly not blind faith or following. How can you breakdown someone's motives for beliefs purely from some little article on the 'net or sound bytes from the radio here and there.

I think you are spazing a little bit much over this...and that is your cause for your comments.


"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch
Related Articles










botimage
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki