Comments on: Center of Attention http://themoderatevoice.com/10168/center-of-attention-8/ An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right Wed, 15 Feb 2012 03:22:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: Gray http://themoderatevoice.com/10168/center-of-attention-8/comment-page-1/#comment-42425 Gray Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:30:13 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/2007/01/09/blogging/center-of-attention-8/#comment-42425 B00ker Rising?! Would you pls stop mentioning blogs than can't properly be spelled in comments? :-( B00ker Rising?!

Would you pls stop mentioning blogs than can’t properly be spelled in comments?
:-(

]]> By: Gray http://themoderatevoice.com/10168/center-of-attention-8/comment-page-1/#comment-42424 Gray Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:29:17 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/2007/01/09/blogging/center-of-attention-8/#comment-42424 Test: Booker Rising Test: Booker Rising

]]> By: Kim Ritter http://themoderatevoice.com/10168/center-of-attention-8/comment-page-1/#comment-42232 Kim Ritter Wed, 10 Jan 2007 05:06:48 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/2007/01/09/blogging/center-of-attention-8/#comment-42232 <em>Libby Spencer at The Impolitic: George W. Bush and Jack Abramoff, together, one photo. Photoshopped or not and does it suddenly become clear why the White House “has blocked access to records of who is visiting at 1600 Penn Ave�?</em> Finally photographic proof of the worst kept secret in Washington. Did anyone really believe that Bush didn't know the biggest, best connected, Republican lobbyist? Libby Spencer at The Impolitic: George W. Bush and Jack Abramoff, together, one photo. Photoshopped or not and does it suddenly become clear why the White House “has blocked access to records of who is visiting at 1600 Penn Ave�?

Finally photographic proof of the worst kept secret in Washington. Did anyone really believe that Bush didn’t know the biggest, best connected, Republican lobbyist?

]]> By: nicrivera http://themoderatevoice.com/10168/center-of-attention-8/comment-page-1/#comment-42137 nicrivera Tue, 09 Jan 2007 20:54:30 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/2007/01/09/blogging/center-of-attention-8/#comment-42137 My God, does anyone here still take O'Reilly seriously? I wrote a pretty critique of him about a year ago at <a href="http://www.centristcoalition.com/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=phpBB_14&file=index&action=viewtopic&topic=157&start=15" rel="nofollow">Centrist Coalition</a>, pointing out his overwhelming bias, his constant spinning of facts, ad hominem attacks, and refusal to stand by the comments that he so boldly makes: <i>The debates on O'Reilly's television show (if you can really call them "debates") are complete shams. His repetoire of debating tactics include resorting to ad hominem attacks, slippery slope arguments, strawman arguments, guilt by association arguments, correlation implies causation arguments, appeal to emotion, appeal to authority, and when all else fails, flat out lying. But most annoying of all is the tactic he employs when his guest refuses to be bullied by him and calls O'Reilly out on the logical fallacies in his arguments: he simply accuses his interviewer of "spinning" or "dodging the issue", as he has done many times before when debating people smarter than he is on a particular issue (see <a href="http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/transcripts/sullumvoreilly.htm" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164716,00.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/transcripts/deutschoreilly.htm" rel="nofollow">here</a>).</i> <i>O'Reilly takes complex issues in which there are several different points of view and reduces them to left versus right debates. <b>His often spoken claim that anyone who disagrees with his point of view is welcome to come onto his show is simply untrue. On July 24, 2004, O'Reilly offered a challenge to anyone who was willing to debate him on the Patriot Act. O'Reilly, a harsh critic of civil libertarians, has been an unapologetic supporter of the Patriot Act since the day it was passed by a congress that never read the bill. Members of Michael Badnarik's Libertarian Presidential Campaign REPEATEDLY contacted O'Reilly's staff to arrange for Badnarik to go onto the show and debate O'Reilly. Although O'Reilly never did answer Badnarik's challenge to debate him, Libertarian activist Dr. Dean Ahmad was scheduled to come on the show to debate O'Reilly on the Patriot Act; however, as part of the conditions for coming onto the show, Ahmad was instructed that he could not mention either the Libertarian Party or Badnarik. Ahmad refused to go onto the show under these conditions, and thus O'Reilly quickly found a replacement.</b></i> My God, does anyone here still take O’Reilly seriously? I wrote a pretty critique of him about a year ago at Centrist Coalition, pointing out his overwhelming bias, his constant spinning of facts, ad hominem attacks, and refusal to stand by the comments that he so boldly makes:

The debates on O’Reilly’s television show (if you can really call them “debates”) are complete shams. His repetoire of debating tactics include resorting to ad hominem attacks, slippery slope arguments, strawman arguments, guilt by association arguments, correlation implies causation arguments, appeal to emotion, appeal to authority, and when all else fails, flat out lying. But most annoying of all is the tactic he employs when his guest refuses to be bullied by him and calls O’Reilly out on the logical fallacies in his arguments: he simply accuses his interviewer of “spinning” or “dodging the issue”, as he has done many times before when debating people smarter than he is on a particular issue (see here and here and here).

O’Reilly takes complex issues in which there are several different points of view and reduces them to left versus right debates. His often spoken claim that anyone who disagrees with his point of view is welcome to come onto his show is simply untrue. On July 24, 2004, O’Reilly offered a challenge to anyone who was willing to debate him on the Patriot Act. O’Reilly, a harsh critic of civil libertarians, has been an unapologetic supporter of the Patriot Act since the day it was passed by a congress that never read the bill. Members of Michael Badnarik’s Libertarian Presidential Campaign REPEATEDLY contacted O’Reilly’s staff to arrange for Badnarik to go onto the show and debate O’Reilly. Although O’Reilly never did answer Badnarik’s challenge to debate him, Libertarian activist Dr. Dean Ahmad was scheduled to come on the show to debate O’Reilly on the Patriot Act; however, as part of the conditions for coming onto the show, Ahmad was instructed that he could not mention either the Libertarian Party or Badnarik. Ahmad refused to go onto the show under these conditions, and thus O’Reilly quickly found a replacement.

]]> By: Michael van der Galien http://themoderatevoice.com/10168/center-of-attention-8/comment-page-1/#comment-42131 Michael van der Galien Tue, 09 Jan 2007 20:12:42 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/2007/01/09/blogging/center-of-attention-8/#comment-42131 Libby, lol, I believe that it's the 2nd or 3rd time already that you're part of <em>Center of Attention</em> :) and... no problem ;) Libby,

lol, I believe that it’s the 2nd or 3rd time already that you’re part of Center of Attention :)

and… no problem ;)

]]> By: Libby Spencer http://themoderatevoice.com/10168/center-of-attention-8/comment-page-1/#comment-42130 Libby Spencer Tue, 09 Jan 2007 20:07:14 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/2007/01/09/blogging/center-of-attention-8/#comment-42130 Thanks for noticing that I really am a centrist Michael. Thanks for noticing that I really am a centrist Michael.

]]> By: Kim Ritter http://themoderatevoice.com/10168/center-of-attention-8/comment-page-1/#comment-42127 Kim Ritter Tue, 09 Jan 2007 19:44:44 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/2007/01/09/blogging/center-of-attention-8/#comment-42127 There's been some speculation that O'Reilly's recent rants against the traitorous lefties at NBC and MSNBC are the result of a recent bout of insanity brought on by being named Worst Person in the World by Keith Olbermann. His latest target was the moonbat of the airwaves, Andrea Mitchell. One can only hope........ There’s been some speculation that O’Reilly’s recent rants against the traitorous lefties at NBC and MSNBC are the result of a recent bout of insanity brought on by being named Worst Person in the World by Keith Olbermann. His latest target was the moonbat of the airwaves, Andrea Mitchell. One can only hope……..

]]> By: Michael van der Galien http://themoderatevoice.com/10168/center-of-attention-8/comment-page-1/#comment-42123 Michael van der Galien Tue, 09 Jan 2007 19:28:43 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/2007/01/09/blogging/center-of-attention-8/#comment-42123 Haha, well, as always: I don't necessarily agree with the bloggers I link to. They do not reflect my opinions. I simply enjoyed reading the articles / found it interesting, etc. Believe it or not, I can enjoy reading an article, even when I disagree with one's general view or certain words one chooses to describe someone (as now). Haha, well, as always: I don’t necessarily agree with the bloggers I link to. They do not reflect my opinions. I simply enjoyed reading the articles / found it interesting, etc.

Believe it or not, I can enjoy reading an article, even when I disagree with one’s general view or certain words one chooses to describe someone (as now).

]]> By: Rudi http://themoderatevoice.com/10168/center-of-attention-8/comment-page-1/#comment-42120 Rudi Tue, 09 Jan 2007 19:19:38 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/2007/01/09/blogging/center-of-attention-8/#comment-42120 The GunTotongLiberaal called the Gasbag a 'Chickenhawk'. mmmmmm? The GunTotongLiberaal called the Gasbag a ‘Chickenhawk’. mmmmmm?

]]>