• 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

Here's some more creepy stuff from the book:
...In 1998, after the launch of “The O’Reilly Factor,” but before superstardom, he published a thriller called “Those Who Trespass,” which is his most ambitious and deeply felt piece of writing. “Those Who Trespass” is a revenge fantasy, and it displays extraordinarily violent impulses. A tall, b.s.-intolerant television journalist named Shannon Michaels, the “product of two Celtic parents,” is pushed out by Global News Network after an incident during the Falkland Islands War, and then by a local station, and he systematically murders the people who ruined his career. He starts with Ron Costello, the veteran correspondent who stole his Falkland story:

"The assailant’s right hand, now holding the oval base of the spoon, rocketed upward, jamming the stainless stem through the roof of Ron Costello’s mouth. The soft tissue gave way quickly and the steel penetrated the correspondent’s brain stem. Ron Costello was clinically dead in four seconds."

Michaels stalks the woman who forced his resignation from the network and throws her off a balcony. He next murders a television research consultant who had advised the local station to dismiss him: he buries the guy in beach sand up to his neck and lets him slowly drown. Finally, during a break in the Radio and Television News Directors Association convention, he slits the throat of the station manager. O’Reilly describes each of these killings—the careful planning, the suffering of the victim, the act itself—in loving detail.
Click to expand...
 
Snide said:
Heh heh. That's about what I came up with. :) I guess I answered my own question by (correctly) calling it a red herring.
Click to expand...

I'll bet you that the difference between the two awards matters to the people who actually win them. Since Bill-O has never won either, in that sense they are both the same. :D

It is another clear-cut case of the stuff Bill-O is famous for. You can't refute it, you can't deny it. All you can do, if you are a right-winger, is lie, distract, and change the subject. :cool:
 
pomeroo said:
Here's more muddy water. Bill O'Reilly did call for a boycott on French goods. My best friend is an oenophile with an impressive collection of French wines. He and his coterie decided to stop dealing with French wine merchants. I don't know if he watches Bill O'Reilly. Do you get the idea?
Click to expand...

Ah, I recommend you increase your vocabulary, good sir!
 
pomeroo said:
You don't have a list of "factual" errors made by Hannity or Coulter.
Click to expand...
My goodness. You really don't know much about Coulter, do you? Are you saying that Canada did send troops to Vietnam? Are you saying that Creationism is true?


pomeroo said:
I guess you don't read the NY Times.
Click to expand...
What have they said that was more over-the-top than "90 percent of the people on the Nobel Committee are into child pornography and molestation, according to the latest scientific studies"?

Take a good look at what Savage is saying. He is saying that because the Nobel Committee awarded a Nobel Prize to Al Gore and climate change scientists, they are into child pornography and child molestation. He then credits this to made up scientific studies.

Could you please point out something written in the NY Times that is way more over-the-top than that?

pomeroo said:
Why are we talking about Michael Savage? Do you want to spend time defending Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, or Ward Churchill? He's a nut who is on the right. Are you responsible for the deranged utterances of nuts on the left?
Click to expand...

We're talking about Michael Savage because you made this ludicrous claim:
pomeroo said:
Savage's over-the-top viciousness, however, does not exceed that of the legion of professional Bush-bashers.
Click to expand...

You've yet to show an example to support that claim.
 
Last edited:
pomeroo said:
Here's more muddy water. Bill O'Reilly did call for a boycott on French goods. My best friend is an oenophile with an impressive collection of French wines. He and his coterie decided to stop dealing with French wine merchants. I don't know if he watches Bill O'Reilly. Do you get the idea?
Click to expand...

No, I don't get the idea. When questioned about the effectiveness if his boycott, Mr. O'Reilly made up a source out of thin air. He cited the Paris Business Review as evidence that his boycott was hurting the French economy. There is no Paris Business Review. He told a lie. Mr. O'Reilly is a liar. There is no muddy water. There is only Mr. O'Reilly's lie. Journalists who make up sources to support their points of view have no credibility.
 
pomeroo said:
In other words, he doesn't share your prejudices and you don't share his.
Click to expand...
O'Reilly's prejudices includes making up conspiratorial lies (yes, lies) about MediaMatters's funding and methods. As a skeptic, you betcha I don't share his prejudices against intellectual honesty.
 
pomeroo said:
Pomeroo resents people who routinely accuse people they disagree with of lying. Naturally, you can't address the position I actually hold. That is, after all, my point.
Click to expand...

Would you like it better if we just said he was full of **** or some other variation on that theme?

I'm sure most of the people here who think Oh Really? is a festering dungheap could change the verbiage in describing the crap that drips from his lips.
 
Last edited:
UnrepentantSinner said:
Would you like it better if we just said he was full of **** or some other variation on that theme?

I'm sure most of the people here who think Oh Really? is a festering dungheap could change the verbiage in describing the crap that drips from his lips.
Click to expand...

Hey, don't go that far, man.

Festering dungheaps actually have a purpose as fertilizer. Don't insult them by comparing them to O'Reilly.
 
pomeroo said:
Sorry, this post makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Anecdote. Do you know the meaning of the term?

If so, do you then understand the very simple concept that:

My best friend is an oenophile with an impressive collection of French wines. He and his coterie decided to stop dealing with French wine merchants. I don't know if he watches Bill O'Reilly. Do you get the idea?
Click to expand...

Is an anecdote?
 
I don't think he cares, Lone. Pomy is in denial so he likely completely ignored BillO's claim to have seriously hurt the French economy with his boycott. Pomy thinks if one less bottle of French wine was purchased, that hurt their economy.
O'REILLY: Now if the [Canadian] government -- if your government harbors these two deserter [sic], doesn't send them back ... there will be a boycott of your country which will hurt your country enormously. France is now feeling that sting.

MALLICK: I don't think for a moment such a boycott would take place because we are your biggest trading partners.

O'REILLY: No, it will take place, madam. In France ...

MALLICK: I don't think that your French boycott has done too well ...

O'REILLY: ...they've lost billions of dollars in France according to "The Paris Business Review."
Click to expand...
Get that, pomy, "they've lost billions of dollars in France according to "The Paris Business Review." That is BillO's quote. That is BillO's lie. There is no Paris Business Review and if anyone boycotted any French products it didn't hurt anyone and BillO had minimal effect on the French economy.

Oh yeah, I forgot, you are in denial. Poor boy.
 
My only problem with O'Reilly is that he's taken as a serious journalist or pundit by any person. In reality, he's a Right Wing Propagandist, and as liberal as I consider myself to be, I don't even like Left Wing Propagandists.

In a perfect world, he'd be ignored as a loudmouth wingnut, but I think the USA is disinterested in formalized journalism and the presentation of facts and would rather hear biased talking heads loudly yell things that appeal to each citizen's own personal bias.

This is why I stick with NPR these days.
 
Furious Coder said:
My only problem with O'Reilly is that he's taken as a serious journalist or pundit by any person. In reality, he's a Right Wing Propagandist, and as liberal as I consider myself to be, I don't even like Left Wing Propagandists.

In a perfect world, he'd be ignored as a loudmouth wingnut, but I think the USA is disinterested in formalized journalism and the presentation of facts and would rather hear biased talking heads loudly yell things that appeal to each citizen's own personal bias.

This is why I stick with NPR these days.
Click to expand...
Yeah, if they called it the Fox Opinion Channel, or the Fox Republican Cheerleader Squad, they'd still be liars on the details, but at least they'd have a more honest label for what they do. Calling it a "news" organization is a flat-out lie, as is their "fair and balanced" nonsense.

That's why, of course, they lie about the rest of the media being "liberal"... for their foolish viewers, their extreme right-wing stance is a "balance" to the rest of the media. That is sort of true, if you consider Fox's line-up of liars and propagandists to be a "balance" to the reality-based programing on CNN and other actual news organizations.

And about NPR: Since when is centrist, neutral to a fault programing some sort of miracle?
 
JoeEllison said:
And about NPR: Since when is centrist, neutral to a fault programing some sort of miracle?
Click to expand...
Since Fox News and CNN became the norm?
 
CNN started the slide rightward; they were never as blatant, and still aren't, but they were and are nevertheless discernibly right from the "big three," ABC, CBS, and NBC. When Faux "News" came along, they went very far right, whether because Murdoch perceived that as a way to make money by gaining an audience that was tired of listening to the truth, or because of his politics, or both, who the hell knows. But calling even the "big three" "left" is right wingnut propaganda; and even NPR and PBS are no more than centrist, if that. If you want left-authoritarian, try the Daily Worker; left-libertarian, Indymedia is your best bet (although both are no better in terms of reporting quality, and often worse, than Faux, albeit left rather than right).

That "bastion of the Left," the New York Times, is pretty far right as well, though no moreso than the "big three."

The US is pretty far right, all things considered, and pretty authoritarian as well. Even the Democrats are well right of centrist, and the Republicans are absolute reactionary capitalist running dogs. :D Both are pretty authoritarian.

The "left wing media" is a myth; none of the major media in the US is leftist, or even centrist. Most people in the US wouldn't know a "leftist media" if it jumped up and bit them on the fundament.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom