• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bill O'Reilly shouts down Michelle Malkin!?

Sword_Of_Truth

Penultimate Amazing
S
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
11,494
Did anyone else catch O'Rielly Factor last night?

Bill had on Malkin and Kristen Powers and they were discussing Rosie O's latest 9-11 CT rantings.

I've said before that I don't like O'Rielly's poor handling of the conspiracist crowd. Every time he's had Barret or Fetzer on the show, all he's done is call them names and shout over them so they can't be heard. No facts, no use of real experts to explain why the CTs are wrong. Just "You're a loon! You're a kook! STFU and get off my show!".

So last night, republi-babe Michelle Malkin attempts to explain her point of view (one shared by most here) that ignoring the CTs is the wrong strategy and it isn't working. But O'Rielly won't have any of it, even when it's someone trying to give more detail on exactly why the CTs are loony. O'Rielly treated Malkin just like he did Fetzer.

It's like he's so afraid of the CTs that he won't have any of thier specific nonsense on the show even in the context of a proper debunking.
 
He's an idiot, a pathologically lying insane nutjob idiot.

I think that covers it? :)
 
I've seen shows where he was doing what you describe. I can't think who was on the show at the time, I am not very familiar with all the pro-truth people out there. One time I do remember it was some professor though. And he was acting just like you suggest, shouting him down and calling him names.

But my impression is that he doesn't even want to give the time of day to these people because he's so offended at what they are saying. That he feels the best way to deal with them is to call them out for what they are, loonies and liars, and to judge them harshly as a way of making them fall into line.

I agree that it's not working, and not the best way to deal with these people.
 
Billy O'reilly is a moron, incapable of serious debate.

Take any issue: 9/11, Iraq, terrorism, Bush....he can only shout people down and call them names.

It's why you only see him debate people when he can cut off their mic.
 
Scumbag O'Reilly is working his ass off for you guys.

Isn't that reason enough to reconsider your position?
 
pagan said:
Scumbag O'Reilly is working his ass off for you guys.

Isn't that reason enough to reconsider your position?
Click to expand...

Yes because everyone who believes in a certain theory must think a certain way huh?

Seriously.
 
pagan said:
Scumbag O'Reilly is working his ass off for you guys.

Isn't that reason enough to reconsider your position?
Click to expand...

So you are one of the people, against Jessica's Law? I wondered who your ilk was.
Unless you agree with him on that, of course.
 
O'Rielly is to news what Fetzer is to truth. He would have been a CT if he wasn't a mouth piece.
 
Dog Town said:
So you are one of the people, against Jessica's Law?
Click to expand...

Actually I'm not entirely sure I agree with Jessica's Law, I agree with the principle, but the implementation seems flawed to me. How is this even relevant anyway?
 
e^n said:
Actually I'm not entirely sure I agree with Jessica's Law, I agree with the principle, but the implementation seems flawed to me. How is this even relevant anyway?
Click to expand...

Was pointing out something I think Bill O got right ! He is rather long winded on the subject. He implied anything Bill was fighting for was the wrong side. Not gonna get all politco here, my bad, sort of.
 
e^n said:
Actually I'm not entirely sure I agree with Jessica's Law, I agree with the principle, but the implementation seems flawed to me. How is this even relevant anyway?
Click to expand...
I believe the point was that it's possible to think that someone is a useless, preening douche even if one agrees with their positions on issues, while pagan's postulate is that it's either all or nothing.

Personally, I lean towards the conservative side of the US political spectrum on many issues while still believing that O'Reilly is a TV example of the Peter Principle.
 
On the other hand, it's a good day on Earth when a fool such as Michelle Malkin gets shouted down by anyone. She is insane. But what do you expect? She's a right winger.
 
FactCheck said:
O'Rielly is to news what Fetzer is to truth. He would have been a CT if he wasn't a mouth piece.
Click to expand...

An interesting idea. Maybe he won't allow a proper debunking because he actually believes them but can't say so because he's not allowed to.
 
ConspiRaider said:
On the other hand, it's a good day on Earth when a fool such as Michelle Malkin gets shouted down by anyone. She is insane. But what do you expect? She's a right winger.
Click to expand...

That would appear to be another unjustified cheapshot. Surely you are above that.
 
Beth said:
An interesting idea. Maybe he won't allow a proper debunking because he actually believes them but can't say so because he's not allowed to.
Click to expand...
I think that's overthinking things. O'Reilly shouts people down because it's considered (and may indeed be) "good TV." Giving the guy his due, annoying as I find him (I can't watch because I like more "info" in my "infotainment" ), the show works and people from all points on the political spectrum watch it, either to get mad or to cheer him on.
 
Whiplash said:
That would appear to be another unjustified cheapshot. Surely you are above that.
Click to expand...
This is a woman who thinks racial profiling is a good thing, who defended the internment of Japanese-American citizens during WW2, who said that Norman Mineta (an interned Japanese-American citizen) should resign as Transportation Secretary because his judgment would be colored on disallowing racial profiling, who said when 3 detainees at Gitmo killed themselves: "Boo-freakin-hoo".

She also charged John Kerry of self-inflicting one of his wounds in Vietnam.

Yeah - I'd say she's insane, wouldn't you?
 
Last edited:
ConspiRaider said:
This is a woman who thinks racial profiling is a good thing, who defended the internment of Japanese-American citizens during WW2.
Click to expand...

Let me make a wild guess here and say that you didn't read the book, did you? Her defense of internment is against the charge that it was solely racially motivated. Considering that she's defending Franklin Delano Roosevelt for his decision (and indirectly criticizing J. Edgar Hoover, who opposed internment), maybe you believe that FDR was a horrible racist who did far worse things than George W. Bush (who, after all, has never suggested interning Arabs or Muslims).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom