O'Reilly lies about Sweden

[Lazul]

http://www.overspun.com/video/Franken.OReillysFakeSwedishStudy.wmv

well I must say this: O'Reilly is one *censur*.

Why is this guy even allowed to continue? are people over there even listening to him?
There is really nothing wrong with marriges over here. Man, he is such an idiot!

:furious3:

[Byzantine Prince]

O'reily lies about everything. Any good hardworking knowledgable liberal knows that. ~D

But don't say that to conservatives, because they get pissed off. ~;)
They just love the guy.

[Lazul]

O'reily lies about everything. Any good hardworking knowledgable liberal knows that. ~D

But don't say that to conservatives, because they get pissed off. ~;)
They just love the guy.

I guess that says alot about those cons. ~;)

[PanzerJaeger]

LoL - You're showing a clip of Al Franken to disprove Bill Oreilly? :dizzy2:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

My My My. What have we here a little love fest. Anyone who believes a wor out of Al Frankens mouth is in need of therapy ~D

He says there was no study


This is not how the situation has been portrayed by prominent gay marriage advocates journalist Andrew Sullivan and Yale law professor William Eskridge Jr. Sullivan and Eskridge have made much of an unpublished study of Danish same-sex registered partnerships by Darren Spedale, an independent researcher with an undergraduate degree who visited Denmark in 1996 on a Fulbright scholarship. In 1989, Denmark had legalized de facto gay marriage (Norway followed in 1993 and Sweden in 1994). Drawing on Spedale, Sullivan and Eskridge cite

evidence that since then, marriage has strengthened. Spedale reported that in the six years following the establishment of registered partnerships in Denmark (1990-1996), heterosexual marriage rates climbed by 10 percent, while heterosexual divorce rates declined by 12 percent. Writing in the McGeorge Law Review, Eskridge claimed that Spedale's study had exposed the "hysteria and irresponsibility" of those who predicted gay marriage would undermine marriage. Andrew Sullivan's Spedale-inspired piece was subtitled, "The case against same-sex marriage crumbles."

Yet the half-page statistical analysis of heterosexual marriage in Darren Spedale's unpublished paper doesn't begin to get at the truth about the decline of marriage in Scandinavia during the nineties. Scandinavian marriage is now so weak that statistics on marriage and divorce no longer mean what they used to.

Take divorce. It's true that in Denmark, as elsewhere in Scandinavia, divorce numbers looked better in the nineties. But that's because the pool of married people has been shrinking for some time. You can't divorce without first getting married. Moreover, a closer look at Danish divorce in the post-gay marriage decade reveals disturbing trends. Many Danes have stopped holding off divorce until their kids are grown. And Denmark in the nineties saw a 25 percent increase in cohabiting couples with children. With fewer parents marrying, what used to show up in statistical tables as early divorce is now the unrecorded breakup of a cohabiting couple with children.

What about Spedale's report that the Danish marriage rate increased 10 percent from 1990 to 1996? Again, the news only appears to be good. First, there is no trend. Eurostat's just-released marriage rates for 2001 show declines in Sweden and Denmark (Norway hasn't reported). Second, marriage statistics in societies with very low rates (Sweden registered the lowest marriage rate in recorded history in 1997) must be carefully parsed. In his study of the Norwegian family in the nineties, for example, Christer Hyggen shows that a small increase in Norway's marriage rate over the past decade has more to do with the institution's decline than with any renaissance. Much of the increase in Norway's marriage rate is driven by older couples "catching up." These couples belong to the first generation that accepts rearing the first born child out of wedlock. As they bear second children, some finally get married. (And even this tendency to marry at the birth of a second child is weakening.) As for the rest of the increase in the Norwegian marriage rate, it is largely attributable to remarriage among the large number of divorced.

He says O Reily made it all up. Thats far from the truth.

The End of Marriage in Scandinavia (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp)

[Byzantine Prince]

Proving O'Reilly is right with a conservative news page about same sex marriage are we Gawain? ~;)

Lazul is freaken from Sweden. I think he knows better if such things as marriage are collapsing because of same sex marriage. :book:

[Don Corleone]

Despite what Al Franken says in the video, O'Reiley was confused, not making stuff up. He said "Sweden" when he should have said "Scandanavia". Here's the report O'Reiley was talking about:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp Author: Stanley Kurtz. Source: Weekly Standard.

And if a majority of Swedish children really are being born out of wedlock, I don't think you should be holding yourselves as the bastion of the domestic institutions.

Oops, too slow.

[PanzerJaeger]

Proving O'Reilly is right with a conservative news page about same sex marriage are we Gawain?

Lazul is proving his point with a clip from an ultra-leftist TV show with two ultra-leftist commentators..

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Lazul is freaken from Sweden. I think he knows better if such things as marriage are collapsing because of same sex marriage.

Yet all of you from outside know whats going on here in the US better than I and and even have the nerve to tell me how to fix it. ~:confused:

You guys do know that O Reily and Franken hacve a vendetta against eeachother do you not?

[Don Corleone]

Well, if over half of Swedish children being born are illegitimate, and Lazul thinks there's no problems with family trends in Sweden, may I politely suggest he get out more? He appears to be slightly out of touch.

[Kagemusha]

I think the reason why majority of Swedish children are born out of the wedlock is that they are liberal.You know its not so horrible thing to happen there. :bow:

[Don Corleone]

I think the reason why majority of Swedish children are born out of the wedlock is that they are liberal.You know its not so horrible thing to happen there. :bow:

Don't claim you're the home of traditional marriage if you're not then.

[Kagemusha]

Don't claim you're the home of traditional marriage if you're not then.

I wouldnt make that kind of claim.But i think that many of those children that are produced off marriage.Still are part of families,only difference is that the parents havent got married in traditional sense. :bow:
BTW:Im not Swedish. ~;)

[Tribesman]

Well, if over half of Swedish children being born are illegitimate, and Lazul thinks there's no problems with family trends in Sweden, may I politely suggest he get out more? He appears to be slightly out of touch.
How do you define legitimate children ? I got married for tax reasons , my church does not recognise my marriage as we are of different faiths , does that mean my children are illegitimate ? What about my little brother , he hasn't married his parter of 17 years , how legitimate are his children .

Legitimacy doesn't matter , it doesn't matter a **** if you are married or not , or even if there is only one parent , what matters is how you are able to raise your kids .

Now what would be interesting is if O'Reillyand Franken could have a discussion on the numbers of single parent households in Scandanavia and America and talk about the levels of support these people get and measure between the two extremes of latch key kids , where the parent is out working all hours , and doss house kids where the parent is sitting at home all hours .

[Don Corleone]

Sorry Tribesman, didn't mean to strike a nerve.

Perhaps the system works differently in Ireland. But in many, many cases (if not a majority), illegitimate children mean the state pays to raise them. I'm glad that your brother is honoring his responsibilities. That's great.

American men apparently are unique the world over. Over here, by not marrying the mother of their children, they avoid a lot of finanical responsiblity for those children. Guess who winds up picking up the check? Perhaps we should send a few Irish and Swedes over to America to teach us what being a responsible parent is all about, as we're clearly inept, and you claim to have no problems with it.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Perhaps the system works differently in Ireland. But in many, many cases (if not a majority), illegitimate children mean the state pays to raise them.

This really is very strange. I'm illegitimate-My parents aren't married, and they've been together for twenty years, and raised me and my sister. One of my best mates' parents have a similar domestic situation.

Certainly in Britain, and other European countries, birth outside wedlock isn't a bad thing, I always assumed it was the same in the states.

[Tribesman]

Not a nerve at all Don ~:cheers:
I am legally married , my church doesn't recognise my marriage , but strangely it does recognise my children . My little brother had the same problem , with his woman being "not of the true faith" . As his partner is able to work he didn't have any taxation advantage as I did , so didn't bother .

Whats even weirder is , if we lived in another parish , the priest would have no problems at all about marrying us in the church ~:confused:

Anyway , sod all that , a funeral is a far better party than a wedding , it goes on for longer and you don't have to bring a gift . ~:cheers:

[Byzantine Prince]

Lazul is proving his point with a clip from an ultra-leftist TV show with two ultra-leftist commentators..
Yeah, how silly of me. The left should never critisize the right. We should let consrvatives get away with everything because we leftists don't deserve to have an opinion. :dizzy2:

[Steppe Merc]

This really is very strange. I'm illegitimate-My parents aren't married, and they've been together for twenty years, and raised me and my sister. One of my best mates' parents have a similar domestic situation.

Certainly in Britain, and other European countries, birth outside wedlock isn't a bad thing, I always assumed it was the same in the states.
In America, most of the parents that have kids out of wedlock either get married or the kid ends up with one parent, or none, I believe. I'm not really that sure, since while I have friends

Just out of curosity, my uncle got married in his senior year of college to a freshman because he got her pregnant. Is my cousin illegitimate since he was concieved before they got married? Or is he legitimate since they got married? Not that it really matters, since they're divorced now...


Don't claim you're the home of traditional marriage if you're not then.
Well, if you go back far enough, most people had they're children out of wedlock, so... ~;)

[bmolsson]

This dude O'Reilly needs to get laid badly........

[Byzantine Prince]

This dude O'Reilly needs to get laid badly........
Well, he was persecuted for sexual harrassment. ~;)

[lars573]

Hey tribesman do you still have the commonlaw statutes in Ireland? Cause here in Canada we do, if you have common-law that means in the eyes of the law your brother is married. I have met several people who are common-law married. One is my own cousin, he has no ring with his girl friend but they have 3 kids together.



Just out of curosity, my uncle got married in his senior year of college to a freshman because he got her pregnant. Is my cousin illegitimate since he was concieved before they got married? Or is he legitimate since they got married? Not that it really matters, since they're divorced now...

The legitamacy of a child has to do with whether it's parents were married when it was born, not concieved. Also legally it means nothing these days. In ye olden days being a bastard (illegitamate child) mean't your father could pretent you didn't exist and never give you a kiss off his ass.

[PanzerJaeger]

Yeah, how silly of me. The left should never critisize the right. We should let consrvatives get away with everything because we leftists don't deserve to have an opinion.

You criticized Gawain for posting from what you call a conservative paper. I was reminding you that Lazul used a very leftist source himself, so your critique doesnt hold much water.

[Byzantine Prince]

"You criticized Gawain for posting from what you call a conservative paper. I was reminding you that Lazul used a very leftist source himself, so your critique doesnt hold much water."

On the surface you're right. I did do what I acused you of.

But in another way, Al Frankin used real footage of O'Reilly being his usual lying dumbass, Gawain posted a link to a conservative rhetoric site. That's the difference. Al Frankin's is 100% true, whilst Gawain's is a bunch of fake propaganda. Prove me wrong.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Al Frankin's is 100% true,

We all just proved him a liar ~:confused:


But in another way, Al Frankin used real footage of O'Reilly being his usual lying dumbass,

I t didnt show him lying at all. You liberals really need to find out the definition of lying.


Gawain posted a link to a conservative rhetoric site. That's the difference.

I posted a link showing that O Riely didnt lie . One that showed a study was done and that Franken is the liar. Actually I will give him the benefit of the doubt and believe he didnt know about the study. Again Franken was sued by O Reily and has a major axe to grind. The difference is that you only choose to believe your side of things.

[PanzerJaeger]

Al Frankin's is 100% true, whilst Gawain's is a bunch of fake propaganda. Prove me wrong.

He posted the freaking study! You were proven wrong in post #5.

[Red Harvest]

Illegitimacy, legitimacy, divorce, single parent families... illegitimate has nothing to do with welfare in the U.S. One is not the subset of the other, nor the equivalent.

Now to illustrate how wrong these stereotypes can be: One day, back in college during the Reagan era, half a dozen of us male white-anglo engineering students were talking about family and divorce in my room at the frat house. My best friend commented about it being unusual for families to be split up and until college he had not thought about it much. I pointed out that of all of us in the room, his was the only family that was still together without divorce/remarriage etc. Yet, that wasn't even quite 100% correct. His dad was actually not his true father--that individual had died in a car wreck while he was an infant so his mother had remarried. There sat the best math and science students our high schools had produced in our graduating classes...off in engineering school, and not a stereotypical one among us

[Ironside]

First, we had this debate before (the gay marriage reduces regular marriage debate).

Second, the Swedish marriage rates collapsed in the late sixties-early seventies, not the nineties. The effect of "gay marriage" (it's known a registered partnership, as the church are currently not approving it, Al Franken does run on a technicality here) is about non-existant in Sweden. For example did Sweden have more marriages 2004 than the last 15 years.

Third, O'Reilly mentions 6 million people and both Sweden and Scandinavia (quite obious) has more than 6 million people. Sweden got 9 million. So what is he talking about? ~:confused:

Fourth, 89% of the children between 1-17 had parents with shared custity 2003, so that children out of wedlock equals that the dad will run from responsibility isn't true here.
Although 25,3% of the 17 years old had thier parents separeting and 4,8% of them never had thier parents living together. (1999) That number have increased during the last 100 years, although much faster during the last 35 years.
Out of all children is 72% living with both parents (2003). I assume that equals no separation, or atleast that the child is registered living with both parents (a while at each).
Link (you can probably find it in English if you dig around) (http://www.scb.se/)'

Fith. And I don't trust something that cannot keep the years straight.


Second, marriage statistics in societies with very low rates (Sweden registered the lowest marriage rate in recorded history in 1997)
1996 33 784
1997 32 313
1998 31 598
1999 35 705
Number of marriages per year. The 1998 number seems a little bit lower to me. And it was more adults 1998 than 1997 too. ~;)

[Sigurd]

...
What about Spedale's report that the Danish marriage rate increased 10 percent from 1990 to 1996? Again, the news only appears to be good. First, there is no trend. Eurostat's just-released marriage rates for 2001 show declines in Sweden and Denmark (Norway hasn't reported).
...

???
The Central Bureau of Statistics does this kind of study nearly every year and the numbers are quite easy to find. Let me help,
The numbers of newlyweds where an all time high in 2000 and 2002 and one haven’t seen such high numbers since the 70’s.
Maybe by including the numbers for Norway it would have destroyed this so-called research?
I have to ask; is this honest research?


...
Second, marriage statistics in societies with very low rates (Sweden registered the lowest marriage rate in recorded history in 1997) must be carefully parsed. In his study of the Norwegian family in the nineties, for example, Christer Hyggen shows that a small increase in Norway's marriage rate over the past decade has more to do with the institution's decline than with any renaissance. Much of the increase in Norway's marriage rate is driven by older couples "catching up." These couples belong to the first generation that accepts rearing the first born child out of wedlock. As they bear second children, some finally get married. (And even this tendency to marry at the birth of a second child is weakening.) As for the rest of the increase in the Norwegian marriage rate, it is largely attributable to remarriage among the large number of divorced.

This is a right picture of the Norwegian trend. They get a child or two before they finalise their commitment to each other by going to a church and making solemn vows before a priest and several witnesses.
But marriage is good even so?

This whole illegitimate, out of wedlock thing is only important to old ladies that want to gossip about and mob young innocent children that live with a father and a mother which happens to be unmarried.
The birth-rate of children born to single parents is only 8 percent; a number that in my opinion should be lower.
I believe in the family, but whether the parents are married or not should not matter.
One can however discuss the divorce rate or families breaking up with the relation to common-law marriage and full marriage. I believe that in those cases that families brake up, it would not have mattered that the parents where married in a church or just decided to live together at one point. The result would have been the same.

I suspect this is another America related issue where there is a problem with non-married families… just as there is a problem with current abortion laws.
But taking these problems and transferring them to nations where the same problems are non-existent gives an askew picture that benefits only the dishonest researcher and the propaganda machine.

[doc_bean]

Perhaps the system works differently in Ireland. But in many, many cases (if not a majority), illegitimate children mean the state pays to raise them. I'm glad that your brother is honoring his responsibilities. That's great.


I think most countries make the father pay for his little gift. I know the UK has a law protecting their identity, but I haven't heard of something similar in other European countries.

Single parents probably get more welfare benefits, but I never heard anyone complain they were too high. Big families get the big money (an extra month's pay (a month) if you have 4 children here).

Having a child out of wedlock isn't so bad anymore. It used to be different a couple of generations ago, i know one of my best friends' parents 'made' him so that her parents would allow them to marry. A few of my older relatives (over 70 now, or dead) got married because they got pregnant. They all had happy marriages, pretty surprisingly.

Divorce rates are pretty high, but they're high everywhere. I don't know anyone who totally left the wife and kids (or husband and kids) behind, usually some form of co-parenting is chosen.

I think there is a difference between the illegitimate children of 'adults' and 'teenagers'. Teenage pregnancy is a problem, and those fathers do often leave the girl behind. However, Most of Europe has pretty low figures of teenage pregnant (except the UK), so it isn't such a big problem either.

[English assassin]

This really is very strange. I'm illegitimate-My parents aren't married, and they've been together for twenty years, and raised me and my sister. One of my best mates' parents have a similar domestic situation

Conversely, my parents were (and indeed still are) married, notwithstanding the fact that Dad moved out when I was about 8, moved back for a bit, moved out again, somewhere along the line I picked up a half sister I have never met etc etc. Yet no doubt this shows in the figures as a "good" legitimate family and BKS shows as a "bad" illegitmate one.

What these two scenarios and some of the post above show is that even when you get accurate figures for marriage, illegitimacy and so on, they tell you nothing.

[Hurin_Rules]

Shouldn't the onus be on O'Reilly to produce this fabled study?

Where did he get the figure of 60 to 65% from? Was he just pulling this out of his A**, as it seems from the fact that he prefaced this statistic with the caveat, "I don't know" (which from him usually means, beware, I'm inventing this).

[lars573]

Check this out, Bill O'Reilly bingo. All credit to it's creator Maddox.
http://maddox.xmission.com/
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=bill_oreilly -his article on O'Reilly.

https://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/lars573/warhammer/billbingo9.gif

Check out G3 (has to do with this topic), and I1 that's just funny.

[Byzantine Prince]

Sadly I think all our attempts to convince conservatives that this guy is an indignant lying douchebag are in vain. They need him to much. ~;)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Sadly I think all our attempts to convince conservatives that this guy is an indignant lying douchebag are in vain. They need him to much.

We need him for what? Most conservatives see him as more of a moderate than a true conservative. Rush makes him look like a liberal ~D

[Lazul]

Well, this thread sure did prove that Bill O'Reilly is and probably allways will be an "IDIOT"... and I stand by that defenition.

He lied, and Franken proved him wrong, and the statistics proved him wrong.

Might add that

Well, if over half of Swedish children being born are illegitimate, and Lazul thinks there's no problems with family trends in Sweden, may I politely suggest he get out more? He appears to be slightly out of touch.

I guess you got proved wrong, there is no problem in Sweden... oh and I dont have to get out more.

Must add that O'Reilly should reallly get his facts right before opening his lying mouth. 6 million in sweden?... heh! dumbass!

Allso, might add that all marriges arent religius, but can also be done by the state. Seeing as more and more are breaking free from the former state church, marriges in the church are getting out-of-date. Thank "god".

[Red Harvest]

I like the Bingo--pretty much pegs O'Reilly squarely. I found some of his antics amusing early on, but quickly figured out that half of his rantings were BS.

There is a strange conservative belief in the U.S. that each argument has only one side, theirs...so only that view should be presented, and only after appropriate review and censoring. They hate the media because it does attempt to show both sides, whether or not they necessarily agree with them. When you are "righteous" you don't have to explain your actions to anyone, and you never make a mistake...

How can anyone think of O'Reilly or Foxnews as moderate? They are just riding a wave.

[Byzantine Prince]

We need him for what? Most conservatives see him as more of a moderate than a true conservative. Rush makes him look like a liberal ~D
And Ayatola Khomeini makes Rush look like a liberal. Where are you going with this, boy? ~:)

!BP! :Egypt:

[Redleg]

I like the Bingo--pretty much pegs O'Reilly squarely. I found some of his antics amusing early on, but quickly figured out that half of his rantings were BS.

There is a strange conservative belief in the U.S. that each argument has only one side, theirs...so only that view should be presented, and only after appropriate review and censoring. They hate the media because it does attempt to show both sides, whether or not they necessarily agree with them. When you are "righteous" you don't have to explain your actions to anyone, and you never make a mistake...

How can anyone think of O'Reilly or Foxnews as moderate? They are just riding a wave.

I listen to O'Reilly purely for the amusment that his opinions offer. Just like I listen to the opinions of Franken - for pure amusment. If anyone thinks either one of these individual speak from a balanced viewpoint, well I got some beach-front property in Arizona to sell.

When one only listens to one side of the viewpoint - well see the Thomas Jefferson quote in my sig. It was true about the news media via print in his day - and its even true in our multi-media sources today.

[Don Corleone]

Well, this thread sure did prove that Bill O'Reilly is and probably allways will be an "IDIOT"... and I stand by that defenition.

He lied, and Franken proved him wrong, and the statistics proved him wrong.

Might add that

Well, if over half of Swedish children being born are illegitimate, and Lazul thinks there's no problems with family trends in Sweden, may I politely suggest he get out more? He appears to be slightly out of touch.

I guess you got proved wrong, there is no problem in Sweden... oh and I dont have to get out more.

Must add that O'Reilly should reallly get his facts right before opening his lying mouth. 6 million in sweden?... heh! dumbass!

Allso, might add that all marriges arent religius, but can also be done by the state. Seeing as more and more are breaking free from the former state church, marriges in the church are getting out-of-date. Thank "god".

Lazul,
You posted a link to an Al Franken video claiming that Bill O'Reiley lied about a survey done on marriage and family in Sweden. In fact, there was such a study, which Gawain and I both published links to. You may not like the study, or agree with the data, but you cannot claim it doesn't exist. You can call me dumbass or any other cute name you can think of, but the study does exist. Al Franken was wrong. I previously would have thought you were above such childish personal attacks, but I see now that I was wrong.

Now, I personally cannot stand Bill O'Reiley. I think he's an egomaniac of the first order. He's not conservative or liberal, he's all about himself and his own opinions. But I don't like Al Franken lying in his attacks on him.

Furthermore, the study claims that over half of Swedish children are born out of wedlock. Based on what that would mean for the social welfare system in America, it would be a disaster of epic proportions, as that would mean at least 30-35% of American children would be getting direct aid from the government. Now, some people chose to take my words to mean that I'm a prude trying to disparage anyone who doesn't live up to my Victorian morals. Far from it. I don't give a rat's ass what sort of commitment people take when they decide to have children. We've always had state marriage over here in the states and PLENTY of people live their entire lives together without a church wedding. Most protestant denominations don't even require one. (As far as I know, only Lutherans and Espicopalians. Methodists, Baptists, Congregationalists and all the rest are perfectly content with a J of P, as they don't view marriage as a sacrament). What we don't have a good track record of is a man living with a woman and having children by her with no legal recognition of the marriage. All too often, he wakes up one day and walks away from his responsiblity, and now it's up to me and every other taxpaying male to play Daddy for him.

The important point, for me, is that they not include me or my tax dollars in their baby making decisions. As I said, if Swedish, Irish and English guys make much better fathers, financial responsibility-wise, even when they're under no legal obligation to do so, my hat is off to you. I will repeat however that if 50% of American children were born out of wedlock, it would be a disaster of unmitigated proportion and our tax rate would have to be raised to over 70%.

Now, as I do not care for being called dumbass, or any other of your little pet names, I'm officially declaring my portion of the conversation over. Laugh at me all you want, call me any names you want, I'm through.

[Ser Clegane]

Now, as I do not care for being called dumbass, or any other of your little pet names, I'm officially declaring my portion of the conversation over. Laugh at me all you want, call me any names you want, I'm through.

Just to take some tension out of the discussion - of course I might be wrong, but I actually think the "dumbass" was directed at O'Reilly and not at you, Don (at least I sure hope that it was meant that way :stare: )

[Kagemusha]

Don Corleone what you say before maybe opens this thing up little.Here in Nordic countries goverments pay child support money to every children whether their parents are married or not. :bow:

[Goofball]

I listen to O'Reilly purely for the amusment that his opinions offer. Just like I listen to the opinions of Franken - for pure amusment. If anyone thinks either one of these individual speak from a balanced viewpoint, well I got some beach-front property in Arizona to sell.

When one only listens to one side of the viewpoint - well see the Thomas Jefferson quote in my sig. It was true about the news media via print in his day - and its even true in our multi-media sources today.

I'm more of a Jon Stewart guy myself. At least he doesn't try to disguise his show as valid news/commentary and goes purely for the laughs.

[PanzerJaeger]

How can anyone think of O'Reilly or Foxnews as moderate? They are just riding a wave.

The same can be said about PBS, only their wave hit the beach years ago. ~;)

[Redleg]

I'm more of a Jon Stewart guy myself. At least he doesn't try to disguise his show as valid news/commentary and goes purely for the laughs.

Yep he is a little more honest in his approach about the news that he reports on his show. But I often find O'Reilly's and Franken's comments even more humorous because they try to hid it behind their concept of "responsible Journalism," and when one takes remembers they are both idealogs spouting their version of the news - one can find a lot of humor in thier monologs. Ie poking fun at them - not the actual news.

[Red Harvest]

The same can be said about PBS, only their wave hit the beach years ago. ~;)

If you consider providing multiple viewpoints for a wider representation of the news riding a wave, then yes it did. They obviously haven't consulted with Dubya's propaganda ministry to find out what should be aired.

[PanzerJaeger]

LoL, yes, so many viewpoints. Liberal, Leftist, Socialist... now thats what I call Fair and Balanced.

[Lazul]

Don! man, I was calling O'Reilly a dumbass, not you! :bow:

[Don Corleone]

Don! man, I was calling O'Reilly a dumbass, not you! :bow:

You have my apologies then. I read that line as though you thought I was the guy's follower and that was an aside pointed my way.

[Hurin_Rules]

Sorry if I missed it, but I haven't seen a study like the one O'Reilly claimed had been done. All he said was a Swedish study that gave the figure of 60-65% and said that marriage had 'collapsed'. To which study was he referring? Because none of the ones you guys mentioned had any of that crap in it.

[lars573]

Hence his was lying about it.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Hence his was lying about it.

Again you need to learn the definition of a lie. Not having all your facts straight is not lying. Otherwise I could call you a liar right now. ~;)

[Byzantine Prince]

Don! man, I was calling O'Reilly a dumbass, not you! :bow:
Conservatives don't see a difference. Why do you think they are defending him with tooth and nail. They take personal offence if you call their 'idol' a idiot lier.

Oh course this isn't the only time O'Reilly lied. HE lies constantly. You could find like 100 examples of him making up magazines and studies to support his ludicrous statements, so WHY IN THE WORLD DEFEND HIM?!?!? I don't get it at all.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Conservatives don't see a difference. Why do you think they are defending him with tooth and nail. They take personal offence if you call their 'idol' a idiot lier.

Idol? Did it sound like Redleg was defending him. We all said he messed up but that calling it a lie as you continue to do is well .......lying. I have no love for that ego mainiac. He is entertaining though and sometimes makes good points.


Oh course this isn't the only time O'Reilly lied. HE lies constantly. You could find like 100 examples of him making up magazines and studies to support his ludicrous statements, so WHY IN THE WORLD DEFEND HIM?!?!? I don't get it at all.
Well frst off putting up anything with Al Franken saing it is sure to bring conservatives running ~D The mans an a$$. I dont know who we find more repulsive he or Moore. Franken is nothing more that a rock thrower. His real claim to fame was on SNL when he used to state "Hi Im Al Franken and your not" very funny.

[Goofball]

Yep he is a little more honest in his approach about the news that he reports on his show. But I often find O'Reilly's and Franken's comments even more humorous because they try to hid it behind their concept of "responsible Journalism," and when one takes remembers they are both idealogs spouting their version of the news - one can find a lot of humor in thier monologs. Ie poking fun at them - not the actual news.

True, but there are two problems with Franken and O'Reilly (and Limbaugh, since we are on the subject) for me:

1) Many people are too dense to realize that they are driven purely by their own slanted ideologies and should therefore be taken with many, many grains of salt;

and

2) I find their meanness quite off-putting (O'Reilly more so than Franken), but that's really just a matter of style.

Having said that, I also love watching Dennis Miller even though he can have quite a razor-like tongue himself.

Everybody is fair game for him, and his rants sometimes have me crying I'm laughing so hard.

He once made this comment about some dim-witted public figure (I can't remember who):

"This guy has the attention span of Gary Busy covered in fire ants."

~:joker:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

True, but there are two problems with Franken and O'Reilly (and Limbaugh, since we are on the subject) for me:

1) Many people are too dense to realize that they are driven purely by their own slanted ideologies and should therefore be taken with many, many grains of salt;

Sorry but your wrong here. Rush brags that he is a driven conservative and makes no bones about it. His stated purpose is to destroy liberalism . We all know where hes coming from. Many of you take him too seriously and miss the fact that hes an entertainer. Another thing he makes no bones about stating constantly. I mean he was born to host and we were born to listen. ~D The guy is the funniest right wing comedian Ive ever seen. Another fact that he always touts. No your way off Im afraid about Rush. Hes right up front and in your face.

[Redleg]

True, but there are two problems with Franken and O'Reilly (and Limbaugh, since we are on the subject) for me:

1) Many people are too dense to realize that they are driven purely by their own slanted ideologies and should therefore be taken with many, many grains of salt;



A very sound observation there.



and
2) I find their meanness quite off-putting (O'Reilly more so than Franken), but that's really just a matter of style.


Just the reverse for me - however your point is again very sound.



Having said that, I also love watching Dennis Miller even though he can have quite a razor-like tongue himself.

Everybody is fair game for him, and his rants sometimes have me crying I'm laughing so hard.

He once made this comment about some dim-witted public figure (I can't remember who):

"This guy has the attention span of Gary Busy covered in fire ants."


SOme of Dennis Miller's comments almost have me pissing my pants from laughing so hard.
~:joker:[/QUOTE]

[Gawain of Orkeny]

A very sound observation there.

Almost but not on Rush ~;)


Having said that, I also love watching Dennis Miller even though he can have quite a razor-like tongue himself.

Everybody is fair game for him, and his rants sometimes have me crying I'm laughing so hard.

He once made this comment about some dim-witted public figure (I can't remember who):

"This guy has the attention span of Gary Busy covered in fire ants."

Yup Millers the second funniest right wing comedian behind Rush. I guess third would be Jackie Mason.

[PanzerJaeger]

You could find like 100 examples of him making up magazines and studies to support his ludicrous statements, so WHY IN THE WORLD DEFEND HIM?!?!?

Please provide them then.



Some people dont seem to understand the nature of Oreilly's show. He just gives his opinion on news stories, and has guests in to give their opinions. He doesnt represent himself or his show as an objective news show. He gets paid(a lot) for his opinions and analysis - not to report the news.

When you are on TV every night almost every week a year youre bound to make some mistakes. That does not mean he is deliberately making things up or trying to distort the truth.

I watch Oreilly because I like to hear his opinions on things and I like the fact that he can usually book guests that dont agree with him - thus ensuring a fiery debate. I do not watch Oreilly to get objective analysis of the news, thats not his job.

Anyone who does think Oreilly is giving anything more than his own opinion doesnt understand the nature of the show.

[Goofball]

I watch Oreilly because I like to hear his opinions on things and I like the fact that he can usually book guests that dont agree with him - thus ensuring a fiery debate.

Let me help you make a little distinction here:


de·bate http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Ddebate) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (dhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gif-bhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/amacr.gifthttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gif)
v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates
v. intr.

To consider something; deliberate.
To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discuss).
Obsolete. To fight or quarrel.
Bill has shown himself to be a true conservative, because he has opted for the old, obsolete definition of debate, rather than the more civilized, progressive definitions.

~D

In his eyes, to debate means to yell louder than the other person and to tell them to SHUT UP when losing a "debate."

~;)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

In his eyes, to debate means to yell louder than the other person and to tell them to SHUT UP when losing a "debate."

Well Im going to be accused of defending him again but I cant let this pass. Sure he does that sometimes but its the exception not the rule. Its just that hes such an egotistic bigmouth that people cant help but point out his every mistake.

[PanzerJaeger]

I appreciate the condescension Goofball. :brood:

I watch the show fairly frequently and the only time ive ever heard him say shut up to someone was when he was showing a clip from after 9/11 when someone was blaming America for the terrorist attacks. Good for him.

He gives people plenty of time to talk and only interrupts them when they ramble because of time constraints on the show.

If you dont like loud, confrontational debates then dont watch the show. What you said isnt exactly truthful though.

[Goofball]

I appreciate the condescension Goofball. :brood:

My apologies PJ. My humor often sounds condescending, but I don't always realize it.


I watch the show fairly frequently and the only time ive ever heard him say shut up to someone was when he was showing a clip from after 9/11 when someone was blaming America for the terrorist attacks.

While I will grant you that O'Reilly has seldom yelled the exact words "shut up" at his guests, he certainly shouts down more guests than any other talk show guy I have ever seen, with the possible exception of Morton Downey...

Anyway, the article below is pretty funny.


Bill O'Reilly Wants You To Shut Up
Also, Al Franken, Tom Daschle, Jimmy Carter, Rosie O'Donnell, gay people who talk about their sexual orientation, atheist Scouts, peaceniks, both parties …



By Jack Shafer


Posted Thursday, Aug. 28, 2003, at 3:54 PM PT






"Shut up!"



Fox News channel talk show host Bill O'Reilly says "shut up" the way other people say "um."



On his daily show, The O'Reilly Factor, he uses it as a place-holder for an idea still formulating in his brain. As a way to begin a sentence, end it, or punctuate it. Sometimes he says "shut up" with fury, eyes bulging. When he's being dismissive, he delivers it offhandedly and without real malice. Other times he says it gently, with a minxlike twinkle in his eye, signaling to all the world that he's just being frisky.



O'Reilly wants specific individuals to shut up, and he names them. He would like all gays and lesbians to zip it—even though he's invited them on his show to talk about … homosexuality. He's even heaved this impolite language at entire nations, demanding they recuse themselves from the international conversation.



In the half-decade his top-rated show has been on the air, he's called for the muzzling of practically everybody. At the rate O'Reilly is going, he'll be the only person allowed to speak in a couple of years. Which, I suppose, is his master plan. Here are excerpts from his show:



Two-for-One Bank Shot

"Already the two parties are blaming each other [about the power blackout]. And I have two words for them—shut up."

—Aug. 15, 2003



On Location at the Los Angeles Book Fair

[To Al Franken]: "Hey, shut up! You had your 35 minutes! Shut up!"

—June 1, 2003



Where O'Reilly Learned To Say "Shut Up"

"My father didn't tell me anything. My father just said: 'Shut up. Eat your food. There are people starving in Korea,' but he didn't—he didn't offer a lot of career counseling, but he never discouraged me."

—Sept. 17, 1999



No-First-Amendment Zone

"All of these spin-meisters on both sides should just shut up until all the [Florida] votes are counted."

—Nov. 9, 2000



That Means You, Sid Blumenthal

"There is no victory for any American in the impeachment trial. The president should be ashamed of himself, and his partisans should shut up."

—Feb. 4, 1999



Hollywood Sissy

"He has dodged this program, Alec Baldwin has, for years. Bottom line: If you're going to sling it, Alec, then stand up to some fire. If not, shut up and don't be ridiculous."

—Jan. 2, 1999



Bill's Amen Corner

"Anyway, Kelsey Grammar and Robert Duvall were at this dinner, and [they] both said, hey, Dixie Chicks and all—these people should just shut up."

—April 28, 2003



Military Immunity

"I would never tell a general to shut up under any circumstances."

—April 3, 2003



Shut Up for Freedom

"And it is our duty as loyal Americans to shut up once the fighting begins, unless—unless facts prove the operation wrong, as was the case in Vietnam."

—Feb. 27, 2003



To Our Brothers and Sisters in the Great White North

"Canada shouldn't have any say [about the Guantanamo prisoners] at all. I mean, just shut up about it."

—April 16, 2003



To an Anti-War Protester Whose Father Died on 9/11

O'Reilly: "Shut up. Shut up."

Jeremy Glick: "Oh, please don't tell me to shut up."

O'Reilly: "As respect—as respect—in respect for your father, who was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed unnecessarily by barbarians—"

Glick: "By radical extremists who were trained by this government—"

O'Reilly: "Out of respect for him—"

Glick: "—not the people of America."

O'Reilly: "—I'm not going to—"

Glick: "—the people of the ruling class, the small minority."

O'Reilly: "Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of respect for your father. We will be back in a moment with more of The Factor."

Glick: "That means we're done?"

O'Reilly: "We're done."

—Feb. 4, 2003



Presidential Gag Order

"What Jimmy Carter should do is privately give Mr. Bush his opinion and shut up publicly."

—Feb. 18, 2003



Diplomatic Gag Order

"But if the Bush administration wants to attack al-Qaida in Yemen, the Swedes should shut up, because basically it's our people who are dead, they killed our people, and we have to run them down."

—Nov. 20, 2002



He Even Talks Like This to Colleagues

"I'm going to give you a plug, so shut up for a minute, Dick [Morris]. Here we go. You've got the State of the Union address coming up."

—Jan. 27, 2000



Don't Tell Me To Shut Up!

"You're going to say, 'Shut up, O'Reilly! You—you're a sadist with your guests all the time!' "

—Nov. 21, 2002



Special Guest Invective by Sitcom Star ALF

ALF [to O'Reilly]: "They've got a talking Bill O'Reilly doll. It's only $19.95, but it's $50 worth of batteries. The thing doesn't shut up."

—June 25, 2002



Enough To Make O'Reilly Shut Up

"If Congress would pass that [air safety] bill, then I would shut up for a little while."

—Nov. 13, 2001



And He Wonders Why Daschle Won't Appear

"Believe me when I tell you The Factor goes out of its way to get Democrats on this broadcast. But Daschle has been and remains too frightened to appear. So with all due respect, senator, shut up."

—May 17, 2002



O'Reilly Delegates Authority to Sen. Evan Bayh

"If you see [Sen. Tom Daschle] for me, senator, tell him to shut up. For me. You can be nice."

—March 17, 2003



Scout's Honor

[To an atheist Eagle Scout, Darrell Lambert]: "I want to quote this—'On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and to my country and obey Scout law,' on and on and on and on. I mean, God's in the first 10 words. So why did you have to tell them you were an atheist if you didn't have any trouble reading the oath? Why didn't you just shut up?"

—Oct. 30, 2002



Welcome to My Show To Talk About Sex. Now, Please Put a Cork in It.

"My thesis, you may know, is that nobody should ever talk about their sexuality in any—in any regard ever. You should not define yourself that way. It just makes life a lot rougher. So, therefore, I would probably say, if you're a gay celebrity, shut up."



—March 21, 2001



"I am in favor of having equal treatment for everyone. But I'm also in favor of having everybody in the military shut up about their sexuality. All right. Not discuss it, it's not germane. It's irrelevant."

—Dec. 20, 2000



"You can do whatever you want. Just shut up about it. Little kids don't need to know whether you're homosexual, heterosexual, a cross-dresser, whatever. Don't discuss it. That's reasonable."

—Sept. 28, 2000



"I don't want the Scout master to tell my boys if he's gay, if he's straight, if he's a bigamist, if he's anything. I don't think that has any place in Scouting, so therefore I don't think the Scouts are wrong in saying shut up. We just don't want to hear about this."

—Aug. 29, 2000



"Why didn't you just—why—why didn't you just not say anything? This—I never can get this for you guys, and I—and I don't mean to be arrogant or anything like—I just don't get it. Just shut up about it. Who cares what you do? That's what the Air Force is asking you to do. Shut up."

—June 8, 2000



"If I were Rosie O'Donnell and I didn't want to get married, I'd shut up. The same thing with Madonna. Have the kids if you—you know, obviously, they have money. They can support the kids. But I'd shut up."

—Dec. 14, 1999



"I'm asking you to shut up about sex."

—Sept. 23, 2002



O'Reilly: "I don't go running around telling everybody about my sex life, and I don't think you do either, do you?"

Hugh Downs: "No, you don't have to—"

O'Reilly: "So just shut up about it."

—July 2, 2001



Shut Up, Pinhead!

To Mike McGough of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial page, who accuses O'Reilly of exploiting a murder victim's sister who appeared on O'Reilly's show:



"Hey, Mike, shut up. I resent the fact that you said that we exploited this woman. We gave this woman a voice. That's something that you and your stupid newspaper would never do, you pinhead. You would never do that. "

—Nov. 13, 2002



A Viewer Protests the Treatment of McGough

"Paula Evans, Winston-Salem, N.C. [writes]: 'Bill, if you are so concerned about public figures being bad role models for children, please stop interrupting your guests and telling them to shut up!' "



"Well, the 'shut up' line has happened only once in six years, Ms. Evans, and that's because the editor from Pittsburgh was filibustering, after accusing me of exploiting the families of the murder victims. The no-spin zone is a tough place, and lies and unreasonable discourse will be stopped in their tracks."

—Nov. 15, 2002



http://slate.msn.com/id/2087706/

[Red Harvest]

Goofball,

I think you just delivered a hydrogen bomb dead on target in the "shut up" debate.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I think you just delivered a hydrogen bomb dead on target in the "shut up" debate.

I dont think so. Just more spin. ~D


"Well, the 'shut up' line has happened only once in six years, Ms. Evans, and that's because the editor from Pittsburgh was filibustering, after accusing me of exploiting the families of the murder victims. The no-spin zone is a tough place, and lies and unreasonable discourse will be stopped in their tracks."

Hes talking and I belive your were talking of being rude and telling guests on his show to shut up. I see only one instance of that in the article that was posted.

[Goofball]

Hes talking and I belive your were talking of being rude and telling guests on his show to shut up. I see only one instance of that in the article that was posted.

No, there were more than one.

Shut up and read it again...

~D

[Gawain of Orkeny]

No, there were more than one.

Why dont you quote them for me as I only see one. Just shut up and read. ~;)

[Goofball]

Why dont you quote them for me as I only see one. Just shut up and read. ~;)

Okay, quote #'s:

2, 11, 20, 23 (maybe/maybe not), 25, 27, 29.

[PanzerJaeger]

Ahh I dont know why I even bother.

Its a good show if you keep in my you're watching opinion oriented journalism. He gives people plenty of time to state their opinions and Ive never seen him tell someone to shut up besides the guy who blamed America for 9/11.

The liberals try and portray him as the voice of FoxNews to try and show a right-wing bias, when in actuality his show is meant to be entertaining. Their hard news shows come on earlier.

[Watchman]

Okay, now here's something I don't quite get. They say marriage is dying in Scandinavia and over half the children being born "illegitimately", ie. outside marriage.

Well, fair enough. By what I know of my of country that's quite possibly true. Heck, I'm a de facto bastard child myself. The causes to the decline of the aforementioned institution can be debated (and are, among the socially-oriented scholars here; naturally enough the governement is also curious), but they're not important.

What I don't understand is why this is supposed to be of some significance. A marriage is ultimately nothing more than a legally binding social contract between two people, duly mediated and enforced by the state should it prove necessary. Although people tend to attach a lot of symbolical value to it too for some reason. If a couple has children without being married, all that happens really is that they miss a few rather peripheral benefits and that's about it. This isn't the 1940's when an illegitimate child was such a shame a girl would marry about anyone to save face (I understand that's about my father's family background; it'd certainly help to explain why he's such a prick...) or something.

[Kagemusha]

It just warms my heart to see how concerned US conservatives are about family values in scandinavia. :grin2:

[Watchman]

I think they're just worried about the general credibility of a rather dated institution they hold quite dear for some reason, but that's just me.

Mind you, I also think it's none of their beeswax. Mind yer own business. But that's just me again, and has little to do with the discussion.

[PanzerJaeger]

Marriage offers some stability to a family. Over here in America, there are not only benefits to marriage, but penalties for divorce. One line of reasoning for promotion of marriage is that if people have to go through a long, financially painful divorce, they will not abandon their families without a lot of contemplation.

Its a lot easier to walk out on a wife and 3 kids if you are not legally bound to your family.

[Watchman]

So, what happens when a mom and three kids want to get away from an abusive hubby then ?

I fail to perceive the point in forcing people who no longer wish to share their lives with each other stick together by threatening them with sanctions. I actually know a few cases where people who very much should've broken up long ago remained married until their damn deathbeds, and I have a difficult time believing the stress of a divorce would've been any worse for the children than the somewhat venomous atmosphere they witnessed firsthand.

[Kagemusha]

Here in Finland State and Church are separated.If you have children it doesnt chance anything whether the couple marries or not.When a child is born the father confirms its his children and after that its pretty hard to evade responsibility. :bow:

[Watchman]

They are ? Darn. I was always under the impression we actually have a state church - which in practical terms means the governement can tell the church to keep its mitts off assorted things if need be.

Doesn't need to all that often, mind you. The brand of Protestantism you encounter here tends to be of the extremely moderate, everyday variety and bar a few curious cults who mostly keep to themselves, don't bother others and don't get bothered the assorted other sects tend to follow the same mild line.

[Kagemusha]

Yes.Im sure finnish lutherism could be scary to many other christians. ~;)

[PanzerJaeger]

So, what happens when a mom and three kids want to get away from an abusive hubby then ?

Now thats the proper use of divorce proceedings.

What shouldn't happen is people making a lifelong commitment to eachother and then simply deciding, after having kids, they dont want to honor that commitment. That creates all kinds of problems.

Marriage is designed for family stability. Without marriage, children often but not always, suffer from a lack of a family atmosphere.

[Kagemusha]

Now thats the proper use of divorce proceedings.

What shouldn't happen is people making a lifelong commitment to eachother and then simply deciding, after having kids, they dont want to honor that commitment. That creates all kinds of problems.

Thats something i absolutely agree with you. ~:cheers:

[Watchman]

Would you, perhaps, be implying that single parents perhaps can't raise children "properly" ? My personal experience tells different. Very different indeed.

Moreover, what's the point of a "lifelong commitment" anyway ? That's just the sort of thing people promise when they're young, stupid and in love (which notoriously doesn't help peoples' judgement any). But people change and the infatuation usually wears off. People who now profess their undying love and commitment to each other may well have come to actively hate each other inside two years or even sooner, or find out they actually don't have anything in common and simply can't get anything out of the relationship.

Now what's the value in pressuring such couples to stay together ? And don't start bringing up the children; hostile or dead relationships aren't any better growth environments.

[Kagemusha]

That was just wishfull thinking from me.I have huge respect for single parents.I was 11 when my parents divorced. :bow:

[Watchman]

*I* once asked my mother something like "mom, why'd you choose such a lousy dad for us". I was probably around ten at the time. Go fig. Mind you, they weren't married. Thank God, it was difficult enough to get rid of the bugger as was.

Although I was really talking more to PJ really - I don't quite like the vibes I'm getting from his posts.

[Kagemusha]

Yes he can be pretty harsh.Sometimes i feel like here is people from another planets rather then continents. ~:)

[Watchman]

I'm really referring to some of the views his posts seem to hint of, which I quite earnestly dislike. I'm no big fan of radical feminists, but they have coined the useful and descriptive catchall term "patriarcat" - and I'm suspecting something that fits the bill is going to crop up sooner or later.

I'd actually be happy to be disappointed in this prediction...

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Woah lads. What you're doing is the online equivalent of talking like Panzer isn't in the room, when he is. It's not too conducive to the atmosphere of the thread. We're all here to have fun, right?

[Watchman]

Judging by that little green ball thingy in the corner, or lack thereof, he actually isn't. And we need to kill time somehow while twiddling our thumbs in the hopes we can continue this debate today...

Besides, you know, if I went away from a thread and came back to find out people have actually been talking about *me*, and not in genuinely negative tones, I'd actually be pretty flattered.

...
...I think I'm rambling. It's getting a bit late.

[Kagemusha]

Woah lads. What you're doing is the online equivalent of talking like Panzer isn't in the room, when he is. It's not too conducive to the atmosphere of the thread. We're all here to have fun, right?

Yes.You are right.Im sorry if i have offended Panzer. :bow:

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Judging by that little green ball thingy in the corner, or lack thereof, he actually isn't. And we need to kill time somehow while twiddling our thumbs in the hopes we can continue this debate today...

Besides, you know, if I went away from a thread and came back to find out people have actually been talking about *me*, and not in genuinely negative tones, I'd actually be pretty flattered.

...
...I think I'm rambling. It's getting a bit late.

Yes...well...he will be online at some time in the future...gah, it seemed like the right metaphor at the time. This is what comes from moderating at 1.30 AM. I think it conveyed what I was trying to say, anyway.

[Kagemusha]

Yes...well...he will be online at some time in the future...gah, it seemed like the right metaphor at the time. This is what comes from moderating at 1.30 AM. I think it conveyed what I was trying to say, anyway.

You know King,its 3:30 am here in Finland :sleeping:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Okay, quote #'s:

2, 11, 20, 23 (maybe/maybe not), 25, 27, 29.

Is that how you quote things? You lazy Bum ~;) Quote the ones you mean I cant follow your numbering system. ! through ten dont apply. What one is your number 2?

[PanzerJaeger]

Would you, perhaps, be implying that single parents perhaps can't raise children "properly" ? My personal experience tells different. Very different indeed.

That isnt what I said was it?

I will say that it is much more difficult for a single parent to raise a child, much less children.

I believe it is preferable to have a mother and father to raise kids. This not only helps with money and devotion of "quality time", but it adds a lot of stability to a family.

Marriage as an institution promotes the idea of the family unit. You may think its not necessary for a family to involve marriage, and I think, from my own experience, unmarried parents have a much larger risk of splitting when things get tough.


Moreover, what's the point of a "lifelong commitment" anyway ? That's just the sort of thing people promise when they're young, stupid and in love (which notoriously doesn't help peoples' judgement any). But people change and the infatuation usually wears off. People who now profess their undying love and commitment to each other may well have come to actively hate each other inside two years or even sooner, or find out they actually don't have anything in common and simply can't get anything out of the relationship

Finding a life partner has to do with things other than simply lust. Its about having someone you can trust, its about security, its about financial safety, its about the kids, and most importantly its about the preservation of the family unit - which is very important to society.

If you get married to a person simply because you are infatuated with them, which is what you are suggesting, that is a bad decision. Marriage is a life-long commitment and when you tie the knot, you have to be prepared for that.

That is why many people are against gay marriage, divorce on demand, ect. We see that as a continuing weakening of the institution. If marriage turns into simply an excuse to get some gifts and have a party - society loses.

Stable families are more important that many people realize. If we simply ran around having sex and children with whoever we take a liking to, eventually that will catch up to us. There are untold amounts of financial, legal, and emotional issues that would arise from the breakdown of the family unit.

Its happened in some communities here in america. Men who go from one woman to another getting them pregnant, because the women are so desperate to have a man, and it all ends up in court and the taxpayers have to pay for it. Now I know you're from Finland, so your not as opposed to paying for other peoples mistakes - but I am.


Now what's the value in pressuring such couples to stay together ? And don't start bringing up the children; hostile or dead relationships aren't any better growth environments.

Once you have children, its your responsibility to be a good parent. That means keeping any hostility behind closed doors.

I dont have as much concern about couples getting divorced without kids, but once they have kids, they have responsibility and obligations to those children.

Again, its financially and emotionally difficult for children and families to have estranged parents.

[King of Atlantis]

Perfectly said panzer... ~:cheers:

It seems to me that americans simply view marriage differnt than other countries. In America we still view marriage as an important part of the family system, but it seems that that is not the case in other countries....

all these debates are ending up about marriage :embarassed:

[PanzerJaeger]

Hey, a few months ago they were all ending with global warming or the supposed existence of it.. so marriage is a welcome relief. (At least you dont have to pour over various sources to get a handle on the discussion. ~;) )

We havent done gun control in a while though.. :idea:

[Ironside]

So Panzer (or any American who wants to take the call), what are your take on the US divorce rates, compared to the ideas you presented here?

And I would like to see some real answers on that one.

[Redleg]

So Panzer (or any American who wants to take the call), what are your take on the US divorce rates, compared to the ideas you presented here?

And I would like to see some real answers on that one.

Here you go - its really rather easy - a quick google search will provide you many sources of information.

http://www.divorcereform.org/03statab.html

http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/marr-div.html

A site that will link you to many different aspects of the divorce rates

http://www.upspiral.com/index.php?tpid=10216&ttid=100&st=american%2Bdivorce%2Brate

http://missourifamilies.org/quick/divorceqa/divorceqa3.htm


The divorce rate in the United States has generally been going up throughout the 20th century until its peak in the late 1970s. The rate of divorce has been slowly declining since that peak. In the most recent data, there were about 20 divorces for every 1,000 women over the age of 15. This number is down from about 23 divorces per 1,000 women in 1978, but it is still significantly greater than the rate of divorce during the 1950s. At that time, the rate of divorce was about 5 per 1,000 women.

The divorce rate has been climbing in every industrialized country in the world. There are two significant factors affecting the rising divorce rate in the United States and elsewhere: (1) men and women are less in need of each other for economic survival, and (2) gains made in birth control allow men and women to separate sexual activity from having children.

A variety of factors are producing the current leveling off of the divorce rate. We may be at the end of the effects produced by the emergence of reliable birth control in the 1960s, but there are also other factors. Our population is aging, and in general longer marriages are more likely to remain intact. Also, more young people are cohabiting rather than getting married. The breakup of this kind of relationship does not get recorded as a divorce.

[PanzerJaeger]

So Panzer (or any American who wants to take the call), what are your take on the US divorce rates, compared to the ideas you presented here?

Well Redleg as usual had provided good information, which leaves me to what I do best - opinion. ~D

My take on the divorce rate is that its much too high here in America, which signifies that people arent taking their vows seriously. Things could be much worse though, and Redleg's information indicates the rate has leveled off.

[Sigurd]

Things could be much worse though, and Redleg's information indicates the rate has leveled off.
It seems that the numbers are quite representative for the rest of the western world.
The Divorce rates are sinking because it is in step with the marriage rate which is sinking proportionally.
It seems to me as the difference is more or less constant at around 50%.
It could be higher as the data exclude 6 states on divorce rates and only one on marriage rates (3,7/7,4).

[Ironside]

Well Redleg as usual had provided good information, which leaves me to what I do best - opinion. ~D

My take on the divorce rate is that its much too high here in America, which signifies that people arent taking their vows seriously. Things could be much worse though, and Redleg's information indicates the rate has leveled off.

Although I thank Redleg for the information ( :bow: ) it was the opinions I was looking for. I'm aware of the slightly below 50% divorce rate and that marriage is more common in the US compared to northern Europe.

What I'm wondering is that wich group you say takes the vows seriously as you put it? As divorse seems quite common in all groups in the US. Link (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm)

[PanzerJaeger]

I think American society, popular culture, or whatever you want to call it applauds irresponsibility to some extent.

The high divorce rates have more to do with being American that what religion people are. People have been desensitized to divorce, and its no longer seen as a last resort. Thats a shame. :no:

Also, at the same time society pushes "divorce on demand", people are also indoctrinated into the idea that marriage is some kind of spontaneous act of love.. well thats not how it should be.

It really makes me angry when I see some shmuck get on his knees in a restaurant and ask a girl to marry him, and of course she says yes. That kind of huge life choice requires a lot more thought than that. But, you see, here if the girl doesnt automatically say yes, its assumed she has some reservations.

[King of Atlantis]

Although I thank Redleg for the information ( :bow: ) it was the opinions I was looking for. I'm aware of the slightly below 50% divorce rate and that marriage is more common in the US compared to northern Europe.

What I'm wondering is that wich group you say takes the vows seriously as you put it? As divorse seems quite common in all groups in the US. Link (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm)


There is no "group" that takes marriage seriously. It used to be evertone did, but now many people are getting married because they just have the hotts for eachother then they find out after having kids that they dont like eachother anymore. Also, like panzer said, divorce is one of the first resorts now instead of the last.

For example, my grandparents are still married, and my parents are, but my uncle has been married like 5 times. This shows it isnt a group that gets divorced, just many individuals, thanks to personal habits, and pop culture just get married to anybody they fall in "love" with.