Liberalism and Human rights

2»

Comments

  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    scb wrote:
    jlew24asu wrote:
    how is that a serious question? what does Larry King's show contribute to society? how about Keith Olberman? Sean Hannity?

    they all contribute equally..which is not much at all. just another guy on cable news talking current events.

    As I already said, I don't watch O'Reilly and don't know anything about him - that's how it was a serious question. If you don't have a serious answer, then no need to respond. :roll: I don't watch Olberman or Hannity either, so your comparison is meaningless to me. I occassionally watch Larry King depending on the guest, and I'd say his show is valuable for its primary sources (e.g. if I want to know something about Eddie Vedder & he interviews Eddie Vedder, then King has provided more than just his own opinion about the topic in which I'm interested).


    sorry, for someone who seems so informed about this or that, I would think knowing what news commentators, such as the ones mentioned, do for a living is common knowledge. because if you know that, then you should know what, if anything, they "contribute to society".

    and my answer was a serious.
  • rmst09
    rmst09 Posts: 57
    The correct and serious answer to that question is.....he contributes nothing to society. Absolutely nothing. He is what is known as a "Taker".
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    rmst09 wrote:
    The correct and serious answer to that question is.....he contributes nothing to society. Absolutely nothing. He is what is known as a "Taker".

    what about the millions of dollars he donates to a variety of charities?
  • rmst09
    rmst09 Posts: 57
    When Bill starts putting his mouth where a small fraction of his money goes I will give him credit.

    What percentage of his shows this week has he spent talking about the horrendous care that our veterans are receiving? He has a national platform and surely could spend a segment or two of each show championing veterans rights. Unfortunately, it's much easier to throw some money at an organization slap them up on your website and then go right back to spewing hate(admittedly better for ratings and his bank account).
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    rmst09 wrote:
    When Bill starts putting his mouth where a small fraction of his money goes I will give him credit.

    wow. first of all, how do you know its a small % ? secondly, regardless of what it is, its MILLIONS of dollars. he gives 100% of the money he makes from his website to charity. do you realize he doesn't have to do that? do you know of any other news analysts that do that?

    and you wont give he credit for that. simply amazing. seriously guy, put your extreme bias and hatred to the side for a second and think about what you are saying.
    rmst09 wrote:
    What percentage of his shows this week has he spent talking about the horrendous care that our veterans are receiving? He has a national platform and surely could spend a segment or two of each show championing veterans rights. Unfortunately, it's much easier to throw some money at an organization slap them up on your website and then go right back to spewing hate(admittedly better for ratings and his bank account).

    do you watch his show every day? I catch it maybe a few times a month at best, so I really dont know. regardless if he talks about it on his show, he donates MILLIONS of dollars to veterans and families of those who lost someone in the war. wouldn't you rather have him do that, then simply talk about it on his show? I am dumbfounded by your logic....and sadden by the amount of hatred you have.
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    jlew24asu wrote:
    sorry, for someone who seems so informed about this or that, I would think knowing what news commentators, such as the ones mentioned, do for a living is common knowledge. because if you know that, then you should know what, if anything, they "contribute to society".

    and my answer was a serious.

    I don't have a TV, so I don't watch any of that stuff. If I knew what they contributed to society, I might be inclined to look up their shows online - but I still don't know that their shows contribute anything. Obviously knowledge of the personal opinions of random news commentators is not necessary for being informed about this or that.
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    jlew24asu wrote:
    rmst09 wrote:
    When Bill starts putting his mouth where a small fraction of his money goes I will give him credit.

    wow. first of all, how do you know its a small % ? secondly, regardless of what it is, its MILLIONS of dollars. he gives 100% of the money he makes from his website to charity. do you realize he doesn't have to do that? do you know of any other news analysts that do that?

    and you wont give he credit for that. simply amazing. seriously guy, put your extreme bias and hatred to the side for a second and think about what you are saying.
    rmst09 wrote:
    What percentage of his shows this week has he spent talking about the horrendous care that our veterans are receiving? He has a national platform and surely could spend a segment or two of each show championing veterans rights. Unfortunately, it's much easier to throw some money at an organization slap them up on your website and then go right back to spewing hate(admittedly better for ratings and his bank account).

    do you watch his show every day? I catch it maybe a few times a month at best, so I really dont know. regardless if he talks about it on his show, he donates MILLIONS of dollars to veterans and families of those who lost someone in the war. wouldn't you rather have him do that, then simply talk about it on his show? I am dumbfounded by your logic....and sadden by the amount of hatred you have.

    Here's an interesting question: If someone's words and/or action have a negative effect on society but they contribute money to a positive cause, does that necessarily make them a good person or productive contributor to society? (I'm not saying O'Reilly's works and/or actions necessarily have a negative effect on society; it's just a general question to analyze the argument above.)
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    jlew24asu wrote:
    put your extreme bias and hatred to the side for a second...I am dumbfounded by your logic....and sadden by the amount of hatred you have.

    And it goes on...and on... :roll:
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    scb wrote:
    jlew24asu wrote:
    sorry, for someone who seems so informed about this or that, I would think knowing what news commentators, such as the ones mentioned, do for a living is common knowledge. because if you know that, then you should know what, if anything, they "contribute to society".

    and my answer was a serious.

    I don't have a TV, so I don't watch any of that stuff. If I knew what they contributed to society, I might be inclined to look up their shows online - but I still don't know that their shows contribute anything. Obviously knowledge of the personal opinions of random news commentators is not necessary for being informed about this or that.

    I thought you watched Larry King?
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    scb wrote:

    Here's an interesting question: If someone's words and/or action have a negative effect on society but they contribute money to a positive cause, does that necessarily make them a good person or productive contributor to society? (I'm not saying O'Reilly's works and/or actions necessarily have a negative effect on society; it's just a general question to analyze the argument above.)

    news analysts dont have a "negative effect" on society. among all the ones mentioned, each have a very strong following. those people probably believe the new analysts have a very positive effect on society. of course they all have their critics too but so what.

    thats all irrelevant. O'Reilly or whoever wouldn't give millions to charities if they were overall negative people. which makes thats person argument ridiculous. he/she is completely disregarding the fact that O'Reiily gives millions of dollars to multiple charities simply because he/she doesn't agree with O'Reilly's stance on certain issues. thats absurd. disagree all you want, bottom line is he gives a shit load of money when he doesnt have to at all. and on top of that, I believe he is the only news analyst that does that.

Categories