I watched what Rosie said and it was not what O'Reilly is acusing her of. She said, "she didn't know who or what caused 9/11 but we need to find out. And that how could a building hours later and further away crumble from an airplane hitting two other buildings. She like the rest of us just want a answer.

How we get out of this jam?

Actually I have to agree with Nancy Nord. Consumer advocates are not really on the side of the consumers in particular, and people's minds in general.

Such groups, called the “consumer movement,” seek to force businessmen to produce things the consumers do not want to buy, like seat belts and air bags in automobiles before they are sufficiently improved in comfort and reliability and reduced in cost to be attractive to many people. At the same time, the so-called consumer movement seeks to prohibit businessmen from producing things the consumers do want to buy, like breakfast cereals that are enjoyable to eat, and full-sized automobiles. Inasmuch as what is produced in an economy is the result of the free choices of the consumers, the demands of the consumer advocates are comparable to efforts arbitrarily to overturn the results of a free election when one does not like the outcome. The dictatorial character of such demands should be obvious.

Of course, whenever they can be gotten to admit that it is actually the choices of the consumers they wish to overturn, not any arbitrary decisions of businessmen, the “consumer advocates” are almost certain to argue that they are nonetheless justified in their activities, on the grounds that they merely force the consumers to act “for their own good.” Here the “consumer advocates” lose sight of the fact that the fundamental basis of achieving the individual’s good is his guidance by his own judgment.
They show absolutely no respect for the character of the consumers as rational beings, who must be persuaded by facts and logic, not compelled as though they were brutes, in the name of something allegedly more valuable than their free judgment and their dignity as rational beings.

Consumer "safety" advocates are nothing but usurpers of free choice.

Turk Meister @ 7:

texas lady @ 2:

There was a PBS special on the collapse of buildings 1 and 2 which covered the engineering and design flaws which caused their demise. For some reason, however, the report never mentioned building 7 and how it could possibly collapse when it wasn't hit by a jetliner. According to the report, the main buildings collapsed because the airliners sheered off the exterior support columns and seemed a reasonable and plausiible explanation. Now about building 7 and absolutely no attempt to explain its collapse...

Trouble with that is that the twin Towers had monster central internal support columns that did most or all of the support.
The perimeter columns supported the cladding and the outside of the floors.
The suspicious bit about one of the towers is the video of molten steel pouring from one corner before it collapsed.
The case of WTC7 is strange.
My take on the WTC colapse is its either CT territory, or a case of substandard buildings collapsing below their rated strength.
The 'official' story is detail incomplete and laughable.

KO can also add the name Shawn Hornbeck to the list of things to say when BillO sends his minions.

To Bradley Jones @ #11

There should be an emoticon for a standing ovation.

Your response was brilliant and much better than my impulsive immediate thought of "Oh look another Libertarian with a severely diminished IQ and no capability for empathy or caring."

I'll save space and post a link-
Published on Sunday, May 23, 2004 by the Denver Post
When Advocates Become Regulators
President Bush has installed more than 100 top officials who were once lobbyists, attorneys or spokespeople for the industries they oversee.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0523-02.htm

Malmedy, Mackris and Loofah?!?

And I had just gotten "Lions and Tiger and Bears - Oh, My!" down pretty good.

I don't even listen to these anymore. How many times can O'Reilly get all the awards?

#@&!!! Keep the Countdown content coming here...MSNBC has been banished to digital cable land (as of Tuesday) and I refuse to pay Comcast $1 more for digital crap I don't want so I can get my Keith fix.

Heck, I may drop my cable tv altogehter and just live off the content networks put online + whatever the HDTV antenna picks up.

Grrrrrr!

Wag @ 6:

Actually I have to agree with Nancy Nord. Consumer advocates are not really on the side of the consumers in particular, and people's minds in general.

Such groups, called the “consumer movement,” seek to force businessmen to produce things the consumers do not want to buy, like seat belts and air bags in automobiles before they are sufficiently improved in comfort and reliability and reduced in cost to be attractive to many people. At the same time, the so-called consumer movement seeks to prohibit businessmen from producing things the consumers do want to buy, like breakfast cereals that are enjoyable to eat, and full-sized automobiles. Inasmuch as what is produced in an economy is the result of the free choices of the consumers, the demands of the consumer advocates are comparable to efforts arbitrarily to overturn the results of a free election when one does not like the outcome. The dictatorial character of such demands should be obvious.

Of course, whenever they can be gotten to admit that it is actually the choices of the consumers they wish to overturn, not any arbitrary decisions of businessmen, the “consumer advocates” are almost certain to argue that they are nonetheless justified in their activities, on the grounds that they merely force the consumers to act “for their own good.” Here the “consumer advocates” lose sight of the fact that the fundamental basis of achieving the individual’s good is his guidance by his own judgment.
They show absolutely no respect for the character of the consumers as rational beings, who must be persuaded by facts and logic, not compelled as though they were brutes, in the name of something allegedly more valuable than their free judgment and their dignity as rational beings.

Consumer "safety" advocates are nothing but usurpers of free choice.

I won't even bother to fault your twisted logic, or lack thereof; others above have done an excellent job at that...I'll just point out the three most obvious factual errors (or lies) used to reinforce your fallacious argument:

1. I dont' think I've observed a paucity of "breakfast cereals that are enjoyable to eat". I see in every grocery store I've visited hundreds of different kinds of cereal; your lack of enjoyment in eating breakfast denotes either an unimaginative choice of what to consume or a dental problem.

2. Likewise, I have noticed a few full size cars of late, at least in the 10 or so states I've been to in the last year or so. Ever heard of a Lincoln Navigator, Ford Expedition, Mercedes C Type, Chevy Tahoe, Toyota Sequoia, Cadillac STS. Range Rpver Dodge Magnum, Ford 500? Perhaps you should get out more. Seems like a pretty large array of behemoths out there, consumer advocates notwithstanding.

3. "They show absolutely no respect for the for the character of the consumers as rational beings,who must be persuaded by facts and logic..." Strange statement coming from a source of input that shows a glaring lack of both

What is unbelievable is that this man, who threatened violence on the media recently is still on the air!

Bradley Jones:

"There is a reasonable debate about the extent that the government should coerce citizens to choose correctly."

Bwah hahaha...so you think that people do not deserve the dignity of doing what's best for themselves. You are saying that EVERYONE has an element of "dumbness" that requires the government to force you. Hahahaha...have you seen our beloved government lately? They are sou, spying you you chowderhead, and you trust them to make good decisions for you? There is a difference between what is utopia and what is reality. You need to come back down to Earth. Sheesh, no wonder you are so mad at what I wrote...you tremble at the first sign of someone who doesn't want to be told what to do. How dare I huh?

"However, the need for an adequately funded consumer protection agency and to have consumer protection laws enforced is not part of that debate."

It is if you make it part of the debate. Why do you sit back and let others determine what you are going to support or think about? If it's important to you, say it.

"Going to the supermarket to buy dog food shouldn’t be Russian roulette for the dog, nor should purchasing a toy involve unreasonable risks of poisoning children who play with it."

Too bad you think life is playing Russian roulette.

"We hold individuals accountable for gross incompetence that causes harm to their fellow man, I hardly see the controversy in holding corporations up to the same standard."

I agree with you here, but this is not what is happening. The movement has been usurped by people who do not care about simply upholding our rights. It has grown into an industry unto itself. Tort law has been the result of such blatant idiocy.

"As for your specific complaints about automobile safety, I would encourage you just to observe how safety is advertised today."

Thanks, I have

"It obviously holds import in car purchasing decisions, and in fact can be shown safety packages were popular in vehicles."

I am not denying that. What I am saying is bad is when safety is enforced. If it enforced, then the result is not more safety, but more problems. If seatbelts are forced, before anyone wants them, then costs go up for the average automobile. If costs go up then prices go up. If prices go up then people will wait longer to buy another car. Older cars are much less safe than new cars. So safety has not been reduced since seatbelts.

Plus, the small chance that a car accident will occur is not reason enough to sacrifice comfort or cost. If people refuse to wear them, it should be their choice. Yes, seatbelts, if they are forced, could save lives. But more lives would be saved if everyone were respected as rational human beings and capable of making wise decisions for themselves.

"However, there is a business culture in America that is strongly opposed to the idea. For brevities sake, I will not elaborate on."

Thanks

"The arguments are always the same nut-bag drivers are to blame, people should have the freedom to drive in vehicles that are death-traps if they so choose, etc. I would agree with you, except for the policies that you endorse have very real and damaging consequences that can drastically affect people’s lives..."

That still doesn't change the fact that they made the choice that we must respect. We must respect individual choice, even if it is self-destructive, for self determination is more important than you making life decisions on behalf of someone else.

"...but know in the back of your mind, the types of inhumanity, inequality and cronyism that are broadly apparent when people who claim to hold your ideology actually hold power in public institutions."

They may claim it, but they do not practice it. That shouldn't be a reason to deny the ideology, it should be a reason to call them hypocrites and walking contradictions. If they were to call themselves not that ideology but rather "peaceful, kind, loving people", but were actually evil murderers, would you then forget about peace, kindness and love as bad ideologies? Of course not. So you cannot use the fact that some people call themselves something that they are not and conclude that what they say is wrong. What they say is right. But I believe actions are more important than mere words.

"Again, I hope you are just trolling, and if so, and I hope you enjoyed my performance for you. I’m more than happy to do it, but it does get tiring after a while."

I'm not "trolling"...that's what losers with nothing else to do would engage in.

Wag@ 27,

How about stop signs? Speed limits in residential zones? Building codes? Back-up warning signals on dump trucks?Railings on stairways? Smoke alarms in residential housing? Warning labels on prescription drugs? Child-proof caps on medicine? Thermostatic limitation on domestic hot water tanks? Limits on toxic chemicals in building materials? Mandatory safety masks and eye protection on job sites? Chain breaks on chain saws? Ad infinitum...

Are you against all these things? We could do without any or all of them and society could still function, but I doubt life would be quite so pleasant, or long. Don't you think we're all better off with some regulation? Please don't take any of my criticisms personally. As you can tell from some of my examples above, I work in a dangerous environment and even when all the rules are followed, it's easy to die if you just fuck up once. Take my word for it.

I agree that alot of the regulations (especially some enacted recently) seem over the top but I just can't see doing away with all restraint on the actions of people, and especially not businesses. It just gives too many people with no sense of responsibility free reign, often leaving a wake of injury, sickness and death.

Maybe you just have more faith in the intelligence of most people. I don't, and for good reason.

Craig @ 24:

What is unbelievable is that this man, who threatened violence on the media recently is still on the air!

What? Who'd he threaten?

WAG,

By the nature of your last (item-by-item) response, I get a sense that you are not taking of this seriously. You sound like EVERY other apologist for the Bush Administration... and all others who scream at the top of their voices that TAXES ARE BAD... and still drive on the roads, get their kid educated in public schools, live in the relative safety provided by our Uniformed Services, and go to an emergency ward when they are bleeding.

I grow ever more tired of voices like yours who find a small kernal of truth in any argument, then generalize too broadly and too loudly.

Dear Keith,

I am wondering why all yoiur vitriol is always aimed at conservatives. Do you think that the liberals do nothing wrong? When you even talk about conservatives it is always with pejoratives in front of their name or their positions, but for liberals you simply mention them by name.

Wonder why?

Do you think YOU are fair and balanced?

I thought not.