Bill O'Reilly

[JoeEllison]

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. 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.

And, you'll notice, the "left wing" myth works for EVERYONE, except the viewers. The right-wing get to be lunatics in the name of "balance", and the mainstream media can stop worrying about being impartial or balanced because they are already labeled "left wing", and can therefore ALSO pile on the Democrats with impunity. Besides a few hot button social issues, on which the mainstream media is generally neutral or very slightly left of center, the mainstream media is pretty centrist-right at best.

People like Hillary Clinton also benefit from the "left wing" label... it allows her to claim to be progressive, while being centrist/centrist right on most issues. After all, with the right-wing screaming "LIBERAL!!!", it must be true, right?

 

[pomeroo]

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.

I don't know if O'Reilly invented a source to support his claim. I tend to doubt it, as his critics are waiting to pounce on everything he says. I saw stats in the NY Post that showed how the boycott was affecting various French industries, but it was hardly "O'Reilly's" boycott. The purpose of my anecdote was to show that a few people who normally spend a few thousand dollars a year on French wines had decided to register their displeasure with Chirac.

UPDATE: It looks as though Bill did invent his "source." Perhaps the biggest difference between me and a loony-leftist is that is possible for me to be mistaken.

 

[pomeroo]

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.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.

No, skeptigirl, you're a zealot who has no interest in the truth. Why pretend to care about the self-aggrandizing exaggerations of a blowhard like Bill O'Reilly when you are completely indifferent to the vicious falsehoods promoted by the left? Would you care to defend all of Michael Moore's outright lies?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Look, I found the Paris Business Review. (snicker snicker)

http://www.parisbusinessreview.net/

Winner of the prestigious Re'compense Fausse, 2004 (and 2 Peabody Awards)

...We are proud to have been mentioned recently by a misguided American entertainer named Bill O'Reilly

...Clearly, Mr. O'Reilly did not appreciate the humor in our "Poor Little France" column of April 1, 2004

Not quite as humorous as it could be, but funny nonetheless.

 

[JoeEllison]

Notice how O'Reilly and his supporters refuse to apologize for the Peabody lie?

 

[pomeroo]

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?

Actually, I know far more about Coulter than you do. I'm not one of her fans.

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?

Savage is nuts. Why do you insist on bringing him up? The Times doesn't normally feature the foaming-mouth, eyes-rolling crazies who post on the Daily Kos, Huffpo, Brad's blog, Cannonfire, etc., etc.

We're talking about Michael Savage because you made this ludicrous claim:


You've yet to show an example to support that claim.

The only thing ludicrous is your blinkered attitude. You'll find the most ferocious, dishonest, utterly vicious crap every day of the week on the sites I've mentioned. Olbermann's over-the-top lunacy goes far beyond anything anybody on Fox would attempt.

 

[Lonewulf]

I love how Pomeroo amasses what is essentially a huge Tu Quoque fallacy throughout this entire thread.

 

[pomeroo]

Notice how O'Reilly and his supporters refuse to apologize for the Peabody lie?

If I were an O'Reilly "supporter," why would I care? Why don't leftists apologize for the monstrous, Goebbels-like Big Lie they've peddled for years, the nonsense about Bush manipulating intel? When did you last apologize for any number of outright falsehoods promoted by Michael Moore?

You moral frauds are a bad joke.

 

[pomeroo]

I love how Pomeroo amasses what is essentially a huge Tu Quoque fallacy throughout this entire thread.

Well, I love how you frauds who care nothing about truth pretend to worry about a self-described bloviator's exaggerations. Physician, heal thyself.
Tell Michael Moore to stop lying and perhaps you'll achieve a modicum of credibility.

 

[JoeEllison]

Notice how O'Reilly and his supporters change the subject when confronted with a very clear lie?

 

[Lonewulf]

Well, I love how you frauds who care nothing about truth pretend to worry about a self-described bloviator's exaggerations. Physician, heal thyself.
Tell Michael Moore to stop lying and perhaps you'll achieve a modicum of credibility.

The hilarity is that you assume that I'm a Michael Moore supporter because I do not like Bill O'Reilly and consider him dishonest.

You also assume that I don't criticize Michael Moore.

Meanwhile, you call everyone else frauds, because they fall within this small group of people that seem to exist... well... only in your head.

Here's a tip: The thread is called Bill O'Reilly. Not Bill O'Reilly and Michael Moore. Not even dishonest reporters. You want me to go onto a tangent about someone else completely different from the thread, for some arbitrary and non-logical reason.

You're also engaging in quite a bit of illogical generalization.

But continue to rant. It's amusing. Dance, monkey, dance!

 

[articulett]

Pomeroo doing the woo strawman dance --the thing they all must do when there are no facts-- It's too bad you have him on ignore, skepticgirl, because you missed him admitting that Bill-o lied and then congratulating himself for admitting his errors while implying that none of us others would dare do anything as gallant as that.

I have no idea what this supposed Big Lie about Intel is supposed to involve--but I don't want to derail this thread. Apparently pomeroo thinks that everyone who calls Bill-o on his sliminess is part of the plot-- I guess when you worship Bill-o or the right, everyone else is an evil, godless, liberal, pinko, leftist, Intel conspiracist. I also have no idea why Michael Moore has entered this conversation, but for the life of me, I cannot imagine anything Michael Moore has done that compares to the more egregious acts of Bill-o documented in this thread.

And that novel of Bill-o's is sick... especially in light of the creepy stuff he's said on Andrea Makris' tape... he's not really defensible in very many ways. Pomeroo becomes more loathsome with each post.

 

[mrbaracuda]

I haven't been liking this thread for at least a couple pages now. Could you people stop with the name calling etc? Thank you.

Comments like "But continue to rant. It's amusing. Dance, monkey, dance!" sure help. And by the way, you are kind of ranting, not pomeroo. At least in my opinion he's not as aggressive as some of you addressing pomeroo.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I haven't been liking this thread for at least a couple pages now. Could you people stop with the name calling etc? Thank you.

Comments like "But continue to rant. It's amusing. Dance, monkey, dance!" sure help. And by the way, you are kind of ranting, not pomeroo. At least in my opinion he's not as aggressive as some of you addressing pomeroo.

Please tell me this is sarcasm.

I do believe the pomy bashing started when he posted several bold faced falsehoods and when confronted with multiple facts debunking his false claims he began ranting about everyone else. Perhaps you might look again.

 

[pomeroo]

The hilarity is that you assume that I'm a Michael Moore supporter because I do not like Bill O'Reilly and consider him dishonest.

You also assume that I don't criticize Michael Moore.

Meanwhile, you call everyone else frauds, because they fall within this small group of people that seem to exist... well... only in your head.

Here's a tip: The thread is called Bill O'Reilly. Not Bill O'Reilly and Michael Moore. Not even dishonest reporters. You want me to go onto a tangent about someone else completely different from the thread, for some arbitrary and non-logical reason.

You're also engaging in quite a bit of illogical generalization.

But continue to rant. It's amusing. Dance, monkey, dance!

Get a new script. This one has cobwebs. Why is there a thread devoted to Bill O'Reilly? Here's the sunburst: he isn't a lefty and he doesn't swallow the left's propaganda. Is anyone here who acts so outraged about O'Reilly seriously concerned about dishonesty in political discourse? Not a chance.
This thread showcases hypocrites doing what they do best: criticizing someone else for their own vices.

 

[pomeroo]

Please tell me this is sarcasm.

I do believe the pomy bashing started when he posted several bold faced falsehoods and when confronted with multiple facts debunking his false claims he began ranting about everyone else. Perhaps you might look again.

Gee, Skeptigirl, I guess you'll be showing us those falsehoods? No, that's not your style.

 

[pomeroo]

Pomeroo doing the woo strawman dance --the thing they all must do when there are no facts-- It's too bad you have him on ignore, skepticgirl, because you missed him admitting that Bill-o lied and then congratulating himself for admitting his errors while implying that none of us others would dare do anything as gallant as that.

I have no idea what this supposed Big Lie about Intel is supposed to involve--but I don't want to derail this thread. Apparently pomeroo thinks that everyone who calls Bill-o on his sliminess is part of the plot-- I guess when you worship Bill-o or the right, everyone else is an evil, godless, liberal, pinko, leftist, Intel conspiracist. I also have no idea why Michael Moore has entered this conversation, but for the life of me, I cannot imagine anything Michael Moore has done that compares to the more egregious acts of Bill-o documented in this thread.

And that novel of Bill-o's is sick... especially in light of the creepy stuff he's said on Andrea Makris' tape... he's not really defensible in very many ways. Pomeroo becomes more loathsome with each post.

You are quite the simpleton, aren't you? O'Reilly claims he won a Peabody and Michael Moore depicts happy children flying kites in tranquil Baghdad under the benevolent eye of Saddam Hussein. Tell us again, whose behavior was egregious?


Maybe if I stated a third or fourth time that I'm not exactly enamored of Bill O'Reilly it might sink in?


Have you ever the heard the left's Big Lie about Bush manipulating intel to justify toppling Saddam?

You moron.

 

[Lonewulf]

I haven't been liking this thread for at least a couple pages now. Could you people stop with the name calling etc? Thank you.

Comments like "But continue to rant. It's amusing. Dance, monkey, dance!" sure help. And by the way, you are kind of ranting, not pomeroo. At least in my opinion he's not as aggressive as some of you addressing pomeroo.

Right, which you do by quoting a single line out of a much longer post, while simultaneously ignoring someone going on and on about the evil liberals and how we're all "a bunch of frauds". MUCH better than "dance, monkey, dance!", which was meant to be humorous.

So you think that he isn't accusing me (falsely) of supporting Michael Moore? That's part of my "rant". What should I do, accept his lie and move on? I like how you conveniently ignore such things as this:

Well, I love how you frauds who care nothing about truth pretend to worry about a self-described bloviator's exaggerations. Physician, heal thyself.
Tell Michael Moore to stop lying and perhaps you'll achieve a modicum of credibility.

He can call me a "fraud" who cares "nothing about the truth", but that's not ranting! No sirree! But I say "dance, monkey, dance!", and suddenly I CROSSED DA LINE! Calling us frauds isn't aggressive enough for you? Fine, then, I won't be aggressive if I call you a lying cheat. Same thing.

Anyways, moving on.

Get a new script. This one has cobwebs.

I do not recall actually communicating with you before, so I fail to see how I have been "using the same script" when, uh, I just said it.

Why is there a thread devoted to Bill O'Reilly?

Because there are people that wish to discuss Bill O'Reilly. If you want to start a thread on Michael Moore, then go ahead and do so. Until then, you are intentionally attempting to derail the thread as part of a hilarious Tu Quoque fallacy.

Here's the sunburst: he isn't a lefty and he doesn't swallow the left's propaganda.

Ah, it's a leftist conspiracy, I see.

Is anyone here who acts so outraged about O'Reilly seriously concerned about dishonesty in political discourse?

Yes. I am.

Not a chance.

You do not speak for me, and do not pretend you do. You are not capable of reading my mind, nor will you ever be.

This thread showcases hypocrites doing what they do best: criticizing someone else for their own vices.

Care to show actual dishonesty from people here?

Thought not. That's not your style.

You are quite the simpleton, aren't you?

Oh yeah, that ain't aggressive! That certainly doesn't beat "Dance, Monkey, Dance!"

Maybe if I stated a third or fourth time that I'm not exactly enamored of Bill O'Reilly it might sink in?

I, for one, am skeptical of this claim, considering how hard you work to defend the man in this thread. You also seem to assume that anything negative about the individual is automatically wrong "because it must have come from da left!"

Have you ever the heard the left's Big Lie[...]

I have not heard anything called so except by you. I assume it's to make it sound similar to a certain Big Lie once upon a time, a few decades back...

[...]about Bush manipulating intel to justify toppling Saddam?

I don't know any such claim, but I do remember the CIA being pushed into giving a hasty report and reporting on inaccurate information. Either way, I fail to see how this is relevant in a discussion about Bill O'Reilly, unless this is one of his claims? Wouldn't be surprised, it's his cup o' tea...

You moron.

Oh yeah. That ain't aggressive.

 

[DavidJames]

This thread showcases hypocrites doing what they do best: criticizing someone else for their own vices.

Please keep posting, you represent your political viewpoint quite admirably. Maybe you and tokie and cicero can join up and create a "JREFers for political truth" movement.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As a German and not having constant access or any access at all to American TV (even CNN that is broadcasted here is a "world-version"), thus mainly seeing snippets or what foxnews.com has to offer, I have to say that I don't agree with him on some issues, but I like the format and that he lets the "enemy", ie Democrats etc, onto the show, even if it sometimes gets a little hairy, he let's them tell you about their side and has some interesting discussions, at least from what I've seen so far after spending some time on the subject of O'Reilly.



Are you referring to Coulter's interview with the Jewish moderator on whatever station it was on? Would you say Coulter's an anti-Semite? I haven't spend much time on her, but I didn't see anything bad about that interview, whereas some people I've talked to about it found it to be highly anti-Semitic for reasons they couldn't explain heh.

Since you seem to favor pomeroo's attacks over the factual discussion he claimed BillO didn't lie about being in combat in the Falklands when he really only spent a few days in Buenos Aires, or about the Paris Business Review which didn't exist, I thought I'd go back and revisit your other posts here.

You actually think Ann Coulter is not a vile person. That alone means either you are a fundie or a Neocon or both since those are the only two groups that find her not to be vile.

And you don't, for whatever reason, recognize that BillO has people with opposite points of view on only so he can tell them to shut up and cut their mike should they actually attempt to rebut anything BillO says which contradicts their point of view. That whole thing of having the people on so Bill can rip into them is a well known tactic of his. He isn't really allowing other points of view on his program.

Bill O'Reilly Wants You to Shut UP

O'Reilly's attack on Jeremy Glick on YouTube is how O'Reilly typically attacks guests on his show whom he disagrees with.