Bill O'Reilly

[Cicero]

Is it an invalid analogy, or do you just not get it? hm...

Let me ask you this: What does "fairness" have to do with advertising your political beliefs?

If you didn't buy time to advertise these beliefs on a program that did not invite you on to give them, then you are being more than gauche. An example is when an actor/producer/director/writer/composer accepts an award and then goes into some political rant. If the audience is lucky, they get the hook, otherwise, the audience is stuck suffering through a "personal political commercial" that was supposed to be "personal political commercial" free. Get the picture?

 

[Upchurch]

If you didn't buy time to advertise these beliefs on a program that did not invite you on to give them, then you are being more than gauche. An example is when an actor/producer/director/writer/composer accepts an award and then goes into some political rant. If the audience is lucky, they get the hook, otherwise, the audience is stuck suffering through a "personal political commercial" that was supposed to be "personal political commercial" free. Get the picture?

That doesn't even remotely answer my question. What does "fairness" have to do with being provided a forum to advertise your political beliefs?

 

[Cleon]

So we go from this:

Credibility? We are talking about how celebs appear in a venue under the genre of their profession, i.e. producing products of the Hollywood dream machine, and then take advantage of a captive audience, to regurgitate some liberal bilge in between clips of their movies, scenes from their TV shows, or segments between their gigs.

Which apparently means any sort of political outspokenness on the part of celebrities, to this:

If you didn't buy time to advertise these beliefs on a program that did not invite you on to give them, then you are being more than gauche. An example is when an actor/producer/director/writer/composer accepts an award and then goes into some political rant. If the audience is lucky, they get the hook, otherwise, the audience is stuck suffering through a "personal political commercial" that was supposed to be "personal political commercial" free. Get the picture?

Which seems to indicate that you're only complaining about award shows speeches, because that's the only applicable situation.


Frankly, I think you're just angry at outspoken liberals, and you see this as a convenient angle to attack them from.

 

[patrick767]

Frankly, I think you're just angry at outspoken liberals, and you see this as a convenient angle to attack them from.

Well I doubt he'd be so ticked at outspoken conservative celebreties.

hmmm.... does Ben Stein piss you off, Cicero?

 

[patrick767]

You sure could have fooled me. If the forum is so clearly leaning to one political side then why are my views attacked so often?

I think if you did a survey, you'd find about the same mix of political views as anywhere with maybe (and I am not sure) an effect of having more atheists. The number of Libertarians probably (again, I'm speculating) makes the effect of more atheists among JREF members a wash.

My guess is you'd find a much lower than average (for the USA at least) number of social conservatives here. Since a high percentage of the social conservatives are also religious and the JREF forums are pretty low on religious people, that would make sense.

On the other hand, I think you'd find many people on each side of the fence when it comes to fiscally conservative/liberal views.

 

[Cicero]

Well I doubt he'd be so ticked at outspoken conservative celebreties.

hmmm.... does Ben Stein piss you off, Cicero?

Please point to a situation where a conservative Hollywood actor made a political speech at any entertainment venue?

While Stein does have actual connection to politics in that he was a Nixon speech writer, I am just as disinterested in his political opinions if he were promoting the "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" dvd.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

My guess is you'd find a much lower than average (for the USA at least) number of social conservatives here. Since a high percentage of the social conservatives are also religious and the JREF forums are pretty low on religious people, that would make sense.

On the other hand, I think you'd find many people on each side of the fence when it comes to fiscally conservative/liberal views.

I think it would be a mistake to equate skeptical and logical thinking with either compassion or lack of compassion for fellow humans.

And being a skeptic is no guarantee you are equally skeptical about political facts as you are about scientific facts. I wish it were true but unfortunately it has not been my experience.

 

[Lurker]

Unlike libs, I do deal with it by targeting the celebs ripe for ridicule. I am not suggesting some federal legislation to muzzle them.

All right then. We can agree about this. I am sure there are some celebs that have well thought out positions on issues (liberal and conservative) and some that are complete ditzes just like the rest of the US citizenry.

I guess the difference is you dislike them spouting off at awards shows about their political causes of the day. I can kind of even agree with you there but I don't watch the shows so really don't care. I am not sure why you watch those shows, Cicero. What do you care how Hollywood lionizes their own?

 

[Cicero]

All right then. We can agree about this. I am sure there are some celebs that have well thought out positions on issues (liberal and conservative) and some that are complete ditzes just like the rest of the US citizenry.

I guess the difference is you dislike them spouting off at awards shows about their political causes of the day. I can kind of even agree with you there but I don't watch the shows so really don't care. I am not sure why you watch those shows, Cicero. What do you care how Hollywood lionizes their own?

OK. While I am a devotee of the Golden Era of Hollywood, I do not watch awards shows. The last group of people on the planet that deserves more recognition for their contributions to society are the already well-paid and well celebrated artists in film, TV, music, and theater. But one need not watch the shows live to be bombarded by what a celebrity said during the event. Their comments leak through the entertainment section into the front page.

But if we are in agreement about the banalities of celebrities, what is with all the colic about Sean Penn?

Go Chargers!

 

[Lurker]

But if we are in agreement about the banalities of celebrities, what is with all the colic about Sean Penn?

I don't believe I have defended Penn. Frankly, I don't reeally know much about the man.

 

[varwoche]

But if we are in agreement about the banalities of celebrities, what is with all the colic about Sean Penn?

One more try... (Hope springs eternal.)

Just because you have a low opinion of someone, and even if that low opinion is justified, it does not give you the right to tell lies about them.

 

[Lurker]

One more try... (Hope springs eternal.)

Just because you have a low opinion of someone, and even if that low opinion is justified, it does not give you the right to tell lies about them.

You are more optimistic than I since I have long ago given up the possibility that Cicero might support his claim that Steisand and Penn have "proclaimed" 911 to be an inside job. It is clear he has no evidence to support his contention but instead of being a man and admitting such he pretends that guilt by association somehow means Penn & Streisand "proclaimed" their support of 911 conspiracy talk.

 

[Cicero]

You are more optimistic than I since I have long ago given up the possibility that Cicero might support his claim that Steisand and Penn have "proclaimed" 911 to be an inside job. It is clear he has no evidence to support his contention but instead of being a man and admitting such he pretends that guilt by association somehow means Penn & Streisand "proclaimed" their support of 911 conspiracy talk.

Based on the best evidence of their own words and actions, as C&P'd in my previous posts, I have indeed deduced that these two are 911 conspiracy grunions. Guilt by association? This is not a court of law. It is not illegal to be a 911 conspiracy grunion. Acknowledging celebs of being 911 conspiracy grunions is also not defamatory or besmirch whatever character they possess.

How many people have claimed that Bush 43 intentionally "lied" about WOMD's in Iraq without a shred of evidence to support this? I find it peculiar that half a dozen JREFers are incredulous about Penn and Streisand when it comes to their 911 conspiracy beliefs? It seems there is a concerted effort by these JREFers to keep the celebrity 911 grunions limited to Rosie and Sheen.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

In other words, "I got nothin'."

 

[Cicero]

In other words, "I got nothin'."

Not even for Christmas? Ah well, there is always next year.

 

[Upchurch]

Here's a new one from O'Reilly.

In an effort to mock John Edwards, O'Reilly said the following:

As for John Edwards, good grief, this guy has no clue.

EDWARDS [video clip]: And tonight, 200,000 men and women who wore our uniform proudly and served this country courageously as veterans will go to sleep under bridges and on grates. We're better than this.

O'REILLY: That was Edwards' concession speech last night. I mean, come on. The only thing sleeping under a bridge is that guy's brain. Ten million illegal alien workers are sending billions of dollars back home, and Edwards is running around saying nobody has any money. Hard to believe.

He followed a week and a half later by saying this:

O'REILLY: Well, we're still looking for all the veterans sleeping under the bridges, Ed. So if you find anybody, let us know. Because that's all the guy said for the last --

SCHULTZ: Well, they're out there, Bill. Don't kid yourself.

O'REILLY: They may be out there, but there are not many of them out there, OK? So if you know where one is, Ed--

SCHULTZ: Well, actually -- now, wait a minute -- two hundred and five --

O'REILLY: -- Ed -- Ed -- if you know one where -- if you know where there's a veteran sleeping under a bridge, you call me immediately, and we will make sure that man does not do it, is not there.

Olbermann had Paul Rieckhoff of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (see the first link) on to comment:

"I don't know what his agenda is here, but we hope that he uses it as an opportunity to focus on a very critical issue," Rieckhoff replied. "We need everybody's help, and we need folks to support our veterans. This isn't a partisan issue. It's not about John Edwards. It's about taking care of the people when they come home."

 

[Cicero]

Here's a new one from O'Reilly.

In an effort to mock John Edwards, O'Reilly said the following:


He followed a week and a half later by saying this:



Olbermann had Paul Rieckhoff of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (see the first link) on to comment:

Edwards schtick consists of his pathetic attempt to incite class warfare for the express purpose of getting traction in the polls. What does the economy have to do with Iraq/Afghanistan veterans succumbing to drug and alcohol addiction or their mental instability? Since when has Edwards been a champion of the American military?

Why Edwards is still throwing good money after bad to stay in this race is a head scratch. Even his ex running mate, JFK, threw him under the bus and endorsed Obama.

 

[Upchurch]

You're rather transparent attempt to change the subject aside, Cicero, what does that have to do with O'Reilly's minimizing and outright denying the reality of homeless vets in order to make someone he disagrees with politically look bad?

Do you defend what he said?

 

[JoeEllison]

Here's a new one from O'Reilly.

In an effort to mock John Edwards, O'Reilly said the following:


He followed a week and a half later by saying this:



Olbermann had Paul Rieckhoff of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (see the first link) on to comment:

It has always been very obvious that right-wingers hate veterans. This is just another in a LONG list of examples. Really, you can take what the right-wingers say about Edwards, and it tells you how THEY really feel. It is the right-wing that uses vets for political purpose and otherwise ignores them. It is right-wing politicians who push time and again to slash veteran's benefits. And, in this case, it is a right-winger lying through his stupid ignorant teeth about the issue of veterans to attack John Edwards.

I'm a veteran, and I come from a family full of veterans. People like O'Reilly should have to face up for their ignorant comments about veterans.

 

[Upchurch]

It has always been very obvious that right-wingers hate veterans.

wha?