View Full Version : the many faces of bill o'reilly
:)
if you can't beat em with facts (coz he doesn't have any) ... sit on your chair and hammer them into submission with your loud voice and accusations :cool:
http://www.jimgilliam.com/video/krugman_vs_oreilly_200.mov
props to jim gilliam for the factoids that appear on screen with bill o'reilly making him look more and more like a fool as the show progresses...
for the record krugman has a ph.D in economics...
Riptide
08-12-04, 05:50 PM
While I agree with O'Reilly quite often, I think he's kind of an arrogant SOB. As is often the case with these talk radio personalities.
Just yesterday I was listening to Savage and actually got a little irritated with him. Someone called him up and asked him to simply say yes or no, is he calling the skipboat vets for kerry liars or not? He woudln't give him a straight yes/no answer, something he (and hannity, etc.) like to chide others for doing. Instead he just kept evading it and tried to put it back on the caller. Actually kinda made me a little angry, honestly. He's a real ass sometimes.
*EDIT* Don't think I've ever seen him quite that upset. They really got under his skin there. ;)
Son Goku
08-12-04, 06:02 PM
eek, I'll have to download Quicktime again (just reformatted, and fresh installed my computer last night)...
Ya know, just one time I would like to see this person run into someone who can not be intimidated, can not be phased by his booming voice. Someone who could take the accusations, be almost indomitable, and calmly and quitely forge ahead, leaving O'Reilly floored, yelling for an early commercial break :D
he's usually mad when he is flubbing facts to back his positions and his accusations rip :cool:
you really have to watch o'reilly more often to see this... its consistent with his general attitude :)
Son Goku
08-12-04, 06:21 PM
OMG, yeah... From "The New York Times top Bush hater" to his ineffective job creation must == recession. Bleh, flubbing facts is putting it mildly saz, for the way he's proceeding with this argument :thumbsdown:
Looking through that, propaganda is one way to put it... And yes O'Reilly, you were being untruthful, and agressively so :lame: On my BSo'meter, I think that just broke the needle :rofl
BTW, that's about the most polite way I can find to say what I'm thinking right about now, after having watched him there...
saturnotaku
08-12-04, 10:22 PM
It's OK, Michael Moore is 10x the fool (and 10x the size) that O'Reilly will ever hope to be.
Riptide
08-12-04, 10:27 PM
It's OK, Michael Moore is 10x the fool (and 10x the size) that O'Reilly will ever hope to be.
Absolutely. :nanahump:
It's OK, Michael Moore is 10x the fool (and 10x the size) that O'Reilly will ever hope to be.
dunno :cool:
I think they're both equally retarded and pompous...
while moore has the weight advantage... o'reilly has the loud-mouth advantage... and the foot-in-mouth advantage...
at least he finally apologized to the american people this year :cool:
thought that was a nice move...
Riptide
08-12-04, 10:29 PM
I think Moore is a more accomplished liar. :)
But that's an affirmative on the pompous charges. :p
Riptide
08-12-04, 10:30 PM
Just got an idea guys!
Celebrity Boxing 3: M. Moore vs. Bill O'Reilly. :D
Tonya Harding would still kick both their pansie asses.
saturnotaku
08-12-04, 10:33 PM
I think Moore is a more accomplished liar. :)
Sure is - his fabrications spread back to the Roger and Me days.
Son Goku
08-12-04, 10:41 PM
Just got an idea guys!
Celebrity Boxing 3: M. Moore vs. Bill O'Reilly. :D
Tonya Harding would still kick both their pansie asses.
After seeing O'Reilly there, I wouldn't mind seeing him get shown up, just once :D Hmm, me thinking someone like "The Master of the Five Ancient Peeks" in Saint Seiya :lol:
That was funny though, Death Mask was sent to dispatch him and gave his "...injustice can become justice if..." speech; when the dude sat there and told him what an idiot he was being. The other guy complained that only he could sit there calmly and give a speech to the person dispatched by Pope Ares (the incarnation of Aries the god of war) to kill him :D
Five me a break he dance around the issues and could not back up his own positions. He is a hit man for the DNC and he knows it. The NYT and the NYT owned Boston Globe are BOTH completely opposed to the Bush administration. They put party politics above the safety of America and Americans. Yet they cry about the only conservative TV news source Fox News. This is typical of liberals. They talk about free speech but only if you agree with them.
It is funny that Fox News is being banned from Canada because it is "biased" LMAO!!!1 Oh NOEEEEEESSSS! Now if it was biased against Bush they would be singing their praises. If they were biased against the troops they would be slapping each other on the arss and tugging on their special place.
Just yesterday the USA Today nixed a story saying that it was to "pro" Bush. The guy who wrote the article voted for Algore in 2000.
Oh and not to mention the Democratic congressmen who want to threaten Fox News through legislation.
Give me a break this crying about Fox News is pathetic and show how childish and completely Stallinistic the left really is.
You get him on there defending the NYT and lying about what he said and dancing around it. You then say O'Riely had nothing. We he had the guy's book right there and then he danced around the issue.
I am no O'Riely fan, in fact I can't stand him but he is completely right about the NYT. Their anti-Bush POV is well documented.
Five me a break he dance around the issues and could not back up his own positions. He is a hit man for the DNC and he knows it. The NYT and the NYT owned Boston Globe are BOTH completely opposed to the Bush administration. They put party politics above the safety of America and Americans. Yet they cry about the only conservative TV news source Fox News. This is typical of liberals. They talk about free speech but only if you agree with them.
It is funny that Fox News is being banned from Canada because it is "biased" LMAO!!!1 Oh NOEEEEEESSSS! Now if it was biased against Bush they would be singing their praises. If they were biased against the troops they would be slapping each other on the arss and tugging on their special place.
Just yesterday the USA Today nixed a story saying that it was to "pro" Bush. The guy who wrote the article voted for Algore in 2000.
Oh and not to mention the Democratic congressmen who want to threaten Fox News through legislation.
Give me a break this crying about Fox News is pathetic and show how childish and completely Stallinistic the left really is.
You get him on there defending the NYT and lying about what he said and dancing around it. You then say O'Riely had nothing. We he had the guy's book right there and then he danced around the issue.
I am no O'Riely fan, in fact I can't stand him but he is completely right about the NYT. Their anti-Bush POV is well documented.
so what you really mean to say is during the discussion that I have linked above... you stand by o'reilly's fabrications and lies and floundering and wallowing... after which he simply resorts to trying to shout his way out of the situation... :)
wrt fox news... I haven't followed what has been happening to them in congress or otherwise... haven't seen any links or anything saying they are gonna be censored or whatever through congress...
wrt canada they can do whatever the hell they want... al-jazeera was banned from iraq... I am sure they have viewers who are as upset about things as you are...
I would appreciate the congress link and the link about the USA today article though... plus any links you can provide to back up the fact that o'reilly was right :)
would love to know more...
Son Goku
08-12-04, 11:48 PM
Quite frankly I wouldn't want to sit through something like what I saw in those clips day in and day out, regardless of whether it came from the left or the right. I didn't care much for his way of "interviewing" or them text messages flashed on the screen giving a certain opinion of things as fact throughout much of the show.
And it isn't just FOX or O'Reilly as I mentioned in this thread here
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=34143&page=2
Riptide
08-12-04, 11:51 PM
It is funny that Fox News is being banned from Canada because it is "biased" LMAO!!!1 Oh NOEEEEEESSSS! Now if it was biased against Bush they would be singing their praises. If they were biased against the troops they would be slapping each other on the arss and tugging on their special place.
:lol2: lmao
http://www.celluloid-wisdom.com/pw/index.php/weblog/entry/ladies_and_gentlemen_this_is_your_modern_democrat
http://www.celluloid-wisdom.com/pw/index.php/entry/liberal_media_bias_the_hell_you_say/
There is also a PDF on this page. I suggest you read it.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_3009245,00.html
http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story.asp?StoryId=Cqq8nWeidDxmTzM94
The source is the UPI.
This is a clear attempt to once AGAIN strong arm Rupport like they did when they lamb basted him on capital Hill last year.
The simple fact is the left does not like "decenting" opinions. They had this liberal media paradise for years and Fox News comes along and they now want to squash it.
I make no bones that Fox News is biased. I don't mind if CNN is biased to the Left but I wish they would say they were so we can then decide for our selves, just as I wish Fox News would just say they are biased towards the Right. I am consistant on this. The left is not.
Here is more from Moveon.org. Oh yea liberals wanting to take one step closer to shushing Fox News through this STUPID! act. http://www.moveon.org/fox/ This group are flat out Stallinists.
Oh while we are at it lets look at http://www.fair.org/ What a load of crap this site is. I has no pretense about what is fair. They only go after Fox News. This is a leftist web site. Pathetic.
Here is the Canada bans Fox News story from New Max (conservative site)
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/7/19/140321.shtml
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/08/10/20040810_161402_flash4.htm
I didn't know Dean had his own show on MSNBC?
Son Goku
08-13-04, 02:36 AM
It's getting late, so I won't say much. As to moveon.org...they're a PAC, so of course they'll be partisan, and yes to the left ;)
As to O'Reilly's behaviour on that show, his interviewing style was pathetic and it has nothing to be with him being right wing. As I said, there is no way I would want to watch that day after day, no matter who put it forth. Propaganda is mild IMO...and about as polite as I can describe my impressions of Bill O'Reilly both there and elsewhere.
Oh while we are at it lets look at http://www.fair.org/ What a load of crap this site is. I has no pretense about what is fair. They only go after Fox News. This is a leftist web site. Pathetic.
This isn't really true. FOX News is not the only people they have gone after. Just a few examples:
Here's one where they're "going after" both the New York Times and the Washington Post
http://www.fair.org/extra/0309/medicare.html
This one is claiming that the New York Times has a history of racist fabrication
http://www.fair.org/extra/0309/nyt-africa.html
A whole page of links on the New York Times
http://www.fair.org/media-outlets/nyt.html
That's one example from a quick search there. I also don't hold to there having been a "liberal media bias" until FOX News came along. There have been both conservative and liberal news sources for some time. One for instance didn't go to the Wall Street Journal for a liberal spin on things, nor did they go to The Nation for a concervative spin on things...
The whole front page is going after Fox News. LOL come on. LOL I didn't say they didn't go after anyone else. LOL
The WSJ has a fraction of the circulation that the NYT has. That is hardly a good comparison. You can throw in the Washington Times also and they still don't come close to the NYT's circulation.
Like I said I am not a O'Reilly fan. The is a schmuck IMO.
Son Goku
08-13-04, 03:58 AM
The WSJ has a fraction of the circulation that the NYT has. That is hardly a good comparison. You can throw in the Washington Times also and they still don't come close to the NYT's circulation.
And the Nation isn't the biggest circulating paper either... But as I said, there have been both leftist and rightist media outlets in the past. As I remember, Newsweek is considered more on the right as well...
Like I said I am not a O'Reilly fan. The is a schmuck IMO.
Looking at that excerpt saz linked and others, yeah...the way he came off. I can say for sure I didn't like what I was watching in the least. The colorful use of captions throughout the clip (that the interviewed didn't see, and did O'Reilly?) also seemed a bit more leading then I tend to like. It wasn't like showing the name of a place where a story is located.
BTW, I just checked my email. Lets say that I signed one petition by moveon (concerning the changing of the media consolidation rules) and they have me on a mailing list. I seldom ever check their mailings, and usually could be arsed to do so. I'm not the biggest fan/supporter of political action committees, but that's another story. They are going to Congress (so saz, Udawg was right on there being action in Congress it seems). The pertinent part of the email I'll include below, as it is well email, and I don't have an address I could forward this too...
Dear MoveOn member,
Our Fox campaign is becoming a major fight. The attacks are now coming from Fox -- in an attempt to intimidate other media outlets. We need your help. It's time to take this to Congress. On Friday, we'll deliver our Fox petition to members of Congress and we need to have at least 250,000 comments from across the nation. We're pushing members of Congress to make Fox come clean about its rank partisanship. Go to:
http://www.moveon.org/fox/
At first, Fox's strategy was to ignore our charges. But it didn't work. Outfoxed is now the best-selling DVD on Amazon.com. All the major newspapers are asking whether Fox is "fair and balanced." Editorial cartoonists are poking fun at Fox's Republican slant. We've attached links to a few of the best stories and cartoons below.
Last night on Fox News, Bill O'Reilly exploded over all the criticism, declaring war between his network and the New York Times in an attempt to distract from the charges made in the film. This is typical, of course. But no one at Fox has answered any of the charges: Why are there so many Republican commentators and guests compared to Democrats? (The media monitor FAIR reports five to one.) Why does Fox business management dictate how the news is framed in its daily memos? Why would Fox assign a reporter whose wife was out campaigning for Bush at the time to conduct an exclusive interview with him? How can Fox's slogan "Fair and Balanced" be anything other than an attempt to deceive viewers and advertisers?
So instead of responding, Fox is going to try to bully other media outlets into going silent on this story. We've got to fight back. Please join our petition now at:
http://www.moveon.org/fox/
The timing of this petition is perfect, because Congress is beginning to take up the issue. This afternoon, dozens of members of Congress will be viewing Outfoxed in a special showing. Several members of the House have drafted a letter asking Rupert Murdoch to come before them to discuss how he'll correct the partisan bias at Fox...
There was also another email concerning both the FTC as well as Congress.
It's getting late, so I won't say much. As to moveon.org...they're a PAC, so of course they'll be partisan, and yes to the left ;)
As to O'Reilly's behaviour on that show, his interviewing style was pathetic and it has nothing to be with him being right wing. As I said, there is no way I would want to watch that day after day, no matter who put it forth. Propaganda is mild IMO...and about as polite as I can describe my impressions of Bill O'Reilly both there and elsewhere.
This isn't really true. FOX News is not the only people they have gone after. Just a few examples:
Here's one where they're "going after" both the New York Times and the Washington Post
http://www.fair.org/extra/0309/medicare.html
This one is claiming that the New York Times has a history of racist fabrication
http://www.fair.org/extra/0309/nyt-africa.html
A whole page of links on the New York Times
http://www.fair.org/media-outlets/nyt.html
That's one example from a quick search there. I also don't hold to there having been a "liberal media bias" until FOX News came along. There have been both conservative and liberal news sources for some time. One for instance didn't go to the Wall Street Journal for a liberal spin on things, nor did they go to The Nation for a concervative spin on things...
ta for the links...
I don't see anything proposing that fox news be shut up... I do see some whining about their content...
wrt fox news banned in canada... they have not approved their permit to broadcast it would appear... better to ask the canadians here why that is...
Here is what drove me nuts about this "debate" Krugman said the administration pulled arabic seaking special forces out of Afghanistan to fight in Iraq and made it look as if the administration really screwed the war effort there. There is one problem this socialist chimp has, they don't speak arabic in Afghanistan. The people they talk to are not even arabs. They have their own language. So basically he made up a dumb argument that he cannot back up and O'Riely didn't catch it.
there is a reasonably large arabic presence in afghanistan as well udawg... consider the resurgence of al-qaeda and taliban elements there...
you have a point but he is not exactly mistaken either...
Yes it is. He fell flat on his face. The local population that could and might have information does not speak Arabic. Only the Arabian terrorists. This is my only point. He made a mistake in his argument and it falls flat on this very point and Bill missed it.
Here is what drove me nuts about this "debate" Krugman said the administration pulled arabic seaking special forces out of Afghanistan to fight in Iraq and made it look as if the administration really screwed the war effort there. There is one problem this socialist chimp has, they don't speak arabic in Afghanistan. The people they talk to are not even arabs. They have their own language. So basically he made up a dumb argument that he cannot back up and O'Riely didn't catch it.
right then lets took a look @ this shall we :)
what about the fact that bush replaced the arabic speaking special forces with spanish speaking special forces...
krugman says in the mountain areas which is basically where the hide-outs were... and it is a known fact that there were arabic speaking militants out there...
afaik not many spoke spanish...
:confused:
what about the fact that the 2 main languages in afghanistan utilise the arabic script ? you don't think having arabic speaking special forces MIGHT have helped a little there? or do you reckon the spanish speaking lads had a better chance of helping
:confused:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.