Bill O'Reilly

Cicero said:
The Dixie Chics? They embarrassed themselves by criticizing the President in a time of war on foreign soil.
Click to expand...
It's embarrassing to criticize the president in a time of war? Bullroar.

Every president has been criticized regarding war policy from George Washington to George Bush. It is who we are; dissent from official government policy is in our bone marrow. Dissent is not an embarrassement, it is a time-honored tradition.

Oh, and Cicero, when the Republicans harshly citicized President Clinton for "wagging the dog" re the Sudan attacks and during the Kosovo operations, was that an "embarrassement"? Did you speak out against it?
 
Last edited:
ConspiRaider said:
Big Joe, in that context, I'd hope "weak" people would glom onto somebody decent and wise and respectful - someone like our own James Randi.

However, I reject the entire concept of "weak" people, out of hand. There are no weak people - not really. There are only those who have been fooled into thinking they themselves are weak. There are enablers of the "weak person" self-image - people such as O'Reilly and Oprah - who draw power from those who erroneously accept belief in their own weakness. That's why I despise them. O'Reilly and Oprah (and others) are telling their flocking audience: "You need me. You can't make it without me." And many in their audience believe them.

People are actually strong, tough sumbitches. With a thousand times more potential than what some of them perceive about themselves. That's why I like JREF so much. Or any organization that is truly empowering - that underscores the tremendous strength of individuals.
Click to expand...

That makes sense, especially when you look at the kinds of lies that Bill O'Reilly tells. Most of them are fear-based in one way or another. He lies and claims that there are packs of illegal immigrant criminals and lesbians with pink guns roaming the streets. He lies and claims that his political opponents are helping the terrorists, supporting pedophiles, and assisting criminals of all sorts. He spreads the nonsense that homosexuals are damaging America by their existence. He falsely accuses the newspapers, TV, Hollywood, schools, courts, lawyers, musicians, doctors, and every politician to the left of the far right, of being involved in a giant conspiracy to destroy America.

He then presents himself as someone who is "looking out for" the people who view his show and read his books. He makes up fake things for people to be afraid of, and then promises security if only everyone agrees with him.
 
SezMe said:
It's embarrassing to criticize the president in a time of war? Bullroar.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Anything else is nationalistic "obey-your-leader-unquestioningly" bullspit.

With the Right is just fine with advocating as long as it's a Republican they like in office...
 
Lonewulf said:
Agreed. Anything else is nationalistic "obey-your-leader-unquestioningly" bullspit.

With the Right is just fine with advocating as long as it's a Republican they like in office...
Click to expand...


OH, oh... then I guess they wouldn't find this funny... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MyfLmLROHQ&eurl=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

or this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00x4n4C5DPE&feature=related

Those naughty, naughty, liberals... (but, damn, they are so much funnier than those right wing nutters... and so so much smarter...)
 
JoeEllison said:
That makes sense, especially when you look at the kinds of lies that Bill O'Reilly tells. Most of them are fear-based in one way or another. He lies and claims that there are packs of illegal immigrant criminals and lesbians with pink guns roaming the streets. He lies and claims that his political opponents are helping the terrorists, supporting pedophiles, and assisting criminals of all sorts. He spreads the nonsense that homosexuals are damaging America by their existence. He falsely accuses the newspapers, TV, Hollywood, schools, courts, lawyers, musicians, doctors, and every politician to the left of the far right, of being involved in a giant conspiracy to destroy America.

He then presents himself as someone who is "looking out for" the people who view his show and read his books. He makes up fake things for people to be afraid of, and then promises security if only everyone agrees with him.
Click to expand...
That's a good assessment of OhReally, Big Joe. And what's this crap about the War On Christmas? Another of his assorted delusions.

And woe be to those who flatly disagree with this stupid fool named Bill O'Reilly. He reacts like a spoiled, petulant 6-year-old. Shouts. Screams. Threatens to have his security people "get" you. Has them leave messages on answering machines of his "enemies".

What a turd O'Reilly truly is. But he's one of many. A power-drainer. As is Limbaugh. Whose followers proudly call themselves dittoheads. As is Oprah. Whose devotees must check with her to determine what books made her special approval list, and therefore have been cleared for them to read.

Pathetic. Get me these follower-people so I can convince them how UN-weak they truly are. And then after they accept their own strength of character - they say: "Thanks for the info, and now maybe I'll see ya later! Or not!"
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
Do you not know that "non-partisan" and "objective" are, in fact, two different words with their own meanings?


Okay, let's take this in baby steps:
Click to expand...


I see no other way for you to comprehend.


Upchurch said:
Media Matters is a different group from Media Research Center. The names are not interchangeable.

When I ask you a question about the Media Research Center, I am expecting a response that relates to the Media Research Center.
Click to expand...


You're making excellent progress. You are finally in accord with the rest fo the world.


Upchurch said:
When I have asked you a question about the Media Research Center, you reply with a response that relates to Media Matters. (Remember that Media Matters is a different group from Media Research Center.)

Because your response relates to Media Matters and not the Media Research Center, you are not actually answering my question.
Click to expand...


You are confused. Your question about the Media Research Center wasn't a real question. You kept prattling about context, although there is no issue relating to context. Notable Quotables, the publication of Media Researc Center, presents quotes by liberal/ left media figures who purport to be practicing journalism, not partisan politics.


Upchurch said:
If you still don't understand the problem, let me know.
Click to expand...


What good will it do?



Upchurch said:
pomeroo, "non-partisan" means that they are not affiliated with a specific party. This is true. Media Matters is not affiliated with a specific political party. They identify themselves as a progressive organization. There are several progressive parties in the US, of which the Democratic and Green parties are probably the largest.

All of that aside, it still doesn't mean that "nonpartisan" means the same thing as "objective".
Click to expand...

Actually, that is debatable. Media Matters aligns itself with the Democratic candidate.
Strictly speaking, it is possible to be non-partisan without being objective. To the public, however, non-partisan connotes objective.


Upchurch said:
As I recall, you had to be rather selective in your own context in order to "pretty clearly" make that case.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
pomeroo said:
Sigh. Are you people ever able to make it past the first sentence?
Click to expand...

Do you ever say anything other than the knee-jerk right wing party line where Bill-o is not so bad and boy-oh-boy aren't those liberals the worst things that ever happened to the planet--they control everything and how about that Michael Moore (derail blah insult ad hom blah)?
 
Last edited:
ConspiRaider said:
That's a good assessment of OhReally, Big Joe. And what's this crap about the War On Christmas? Another of his assorted delusions.

And woe be to those who flatly disagree with this stupid fool named Bill O'Reilly. He reacts like a spoiled, petulant 6-year-old. Shouts. Screams. Threatens to have his security people "get" you. Has them leave messages on answering machines of his "enemies".

What a turd O'Reilly truly is. But he's one of many. A power-drainer. As is Limbaugh. Whose followers proudly call themselves dittoheads. As is Oprah. Whose devotees must check with her to determine what books made her special approval list, and therefore have been cleared for them to read.

Pathetic. Get me these follower-people so I can convince them how UN-weak they truly are. And then after they accept their own strength of character - they say: "Thanks for the info, and now maybe I'll see ya later! Or not!"
Click to expand...

And, you know, even though Oprah is mostly benign, and Bill-O is mostly malignant... it really is the same sort of thing when it comes to their followers. They all have that same blind devotion to their leader, the same sort of "if they say it, it must be true" belief system.

At least Oprah doesn't invite people on her show, and if they disagree with her attack them and call them "pinheads". You do have to sort of be entertained by the "War on Christmas" stupidity, on some level. That, like his fear of the pink pistol packing lesbian street gangs(150 gangs in Washington D.C. area!! National underground network!!), is one of those lies he tells that you can giggle about, and say "silly right-wingers, they'll believe ANYTHING!"
 
Last edited:
articulett said:
Do you ever say anything other than the knee-jerk right wing party line where Bill-o is not so bad and boy-oh-boy aren't those liberals the worst things that ever happened to the planet--they control everything and how about that Michael Moore (derail blah insult ad hom blah)?
Click to expand...


Congratulations on producing your side's most cogent intellectual argument to date for its refusal to read anything that doesn't appear on a far-left loon site.
 
JoeEllison said:
And, you know, even though Oprah is mostly benign, and Bill-O is mostly malignant... it really is the same sort of thing when it comes to their followers. They all have that same blind devotion to their leader, the same sort of "if they say it, it must be true" belief system.

At least Oprah doesn't invite people on her show, and if they disagree with her attack them and call them "pinheads". You do have to sort of be entertained by the "War on Christmas" stupidity, on some level. That, like his fear of the pink pistol packing lesbian street gangs(150 gangs in Washington D.C. area!! National underground network!!), is one of those lies he tells that you can giggle about, and say "silly right-wingers, they'll believe ANYTHING!"
Click to expand...


Yawn. I suppose you dunces can produce evidence of the existence of someone who has "blind devotion to their leader" Bill O'Reilly. No? Trust me, nobody thought for a second that you could.
 
Last edited:
SezMe said:
It's embarrassing to criticize the president in a time of war? Bullroar.

Every president has been criticized regarding war policy from George Washington to George Bush. It is who we are; dissent from official government policy is in our bone marrow. Dissent is not an embarrassement, it is a time-honored tradition.

Oh, and Cicero, when the Republicans harshly citicized President Clinton for "wagging the dog" re the Sudan attacks and during the Kosovo operations, was that an "embarrassement"? Did you speak out against it?
Click to expand...

Making callow comments about one's President on FOREIGN SOIL, during a war your country is engaged in, is completely different than making a fool out of yourself by mixing idiotic benighted political commentary with bad renditions of original songs inside the boarders of your own country. Ask Jane Fonda about her problem at the end of the Vietnam War.


But neither the Chics, or Fonda, who made a fool of herself in North Vietnam, were prosecuted for any crime. So what is your problem? There are consequences for celebrities who want to mix politics with their entertainment. Public opinion rules the day. The paying customers can register their dissatisfaction by not buying tickets and by speaking out against these bug wit celebs. The First Amendment is not just for licentious liberal loons.
 
Last edited:
articulett said:
Those naughty, naughty, liberals... (but, damn, they are so much funnier than those right wing nutters... and so so much smarter...)
Click to expand...

Let's examine the intelligence quota of your favorite liberals:

Rosie O'Donnelll, Sean Penn, Jeneane Garofalo, Danny Devito, Barbara Streisand, are all summa cum laude graduates and have advanced degrees.....oops! I guess high school, for those who did not drop out, will have to suffice.

But you are correct in one thing, they sure are "funnier" in that people are laughing at them, not with them.
 
Cicero said:
Does this mean you will not be voting for Obama?
Click to expand...
Not in the primaries here in California. I like Hillary a bit better than Edwards, at this point. Looks like I'll go with her. We'll see.

Now if Obama makes it to the nomination? Yep. I'll vote for him in November. Screw what Oprah thinks. I pay as much attention to her endorsement as I would reviews of her latest "I Just Lost 105 Pounds By Chopping Off a Dollop Of My Ego" book.

And of course I sure as living hell wouldn't vote for any one of the Republicans who have all been designated as Certified Choice Fools by the USDA (United States Department of AgriFoolture). That activity is reserved for people such as yourself.
 
ConspiRaider said:
Not in the primaries here in California. I like Hillary a bit better than Edwards, at this point. Looks like I'll go with her. We'll see.

Now if Obama makes it to the nomination? Yep. I'll vote for him in November. Screw what Oprah thinks. I pay as much attention to her endorsement as I would reviews of her latest "I Just Lost 105 Pounds By Chopping Off a Dollop Of My Ego" book.

And of course I sure as living hell wouldn't vote for any one of the Republicans who have all been designated as Certified Choice Fools by the USDA (United States Department of AgriFoolture). That activity is reserved for people such as yourself.
Click to expand...

I see. You have castigated those who listen to O'REilly, who doesn't endorse any candidate, but you would still vote for Obama, even though he is endorsed by the TV queen Oprah, who is considered moronic by yourself? I bet you you were a devote of James Frey’s "A Million Little Pieces" until Oprah countermanded her order to read his book.

I doubt any Republican candidate is campaigning for your liberal vote and considering your penchant for fractured and feckless acronyms, I wonder if any of the Dems would claim you either.
.
 
ConspiRaider said:
And of course I sure as living hell wouldn't vote for any one of the Republicans who have all been designated as Certified Choice Fools by the USDA (United States Department of AgriFoolture). That activity is reserved for people such as yourself.
Click to expand...

From what I hear, the Bush administration has severely cut back on this departments budgets, and now they have only a fifth of the Fool Inspectors they previously had.

Might explain the current composition of the Republican field...
 
Praktik said:
From what I hear, the Bush administration has severely cut back on this departments budgets, and now they have only a fifth of the Fool Inspectors they previously had.

Might explain the current composition of the Republican field...
Click to expand...
:D

That's DoofieCorps for ya. Der Doofster "Doofie" McDoofBush is at least consistent. Cut out U.S. Attorneys he don't like. Cut financial aid for kiddie health care. Cut the number of Fool Inspectors before they can turn their sights to the Oval Office and officially designate him what we reasonable folks already regard him as: Certified Fool-Doofie, USDA Choice.
 
ConspiRaider said:
:D

That's DoofieCorps for ya. Der Doofster "Doofie" McDoofBush is at least consistent. Cut out U.S. Attorneys he don't like. Cut financial aid for kiddie health care. Cut the number of Fool Inspectors before they can turn their sights to the Oval Office and officially designate him what we reasonable folks already regard him as: Certified Fool-Doofie, USDA Choice.
Click to expand...


Wow, poor Kerry! Imagine having a lower IQ than a guy as dumb as Bush!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom