Bill O'Reilly

[Upchurch]

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?

What does Moore have anything to do with O'Reilly's lack of credibility?

Or would you like to talk some more about Savage?

 

[articulett]

What does Moore have anything to do with O'Reilly's lack of credibility?

Or would you like to talk some more about Savage?

And I think this thread contained a lot more O'Reilly nuttiness than his Peabody award lie--

I don't think I can even like people who defend O'Reilly... they remind me too much of him. I wonder what Pomeroo thinks knowing that he sounds like O'Reilly and Tokenconservative-- is he proud to sound like them? Does he realize he's similar in personality? Do these folks like each other... Does Coulter like O'Reilly... I just find all of them so slimy and dishonest and hypocritical.

 

[Upchurch]

Here is O'Reilly getting pwnd by a high school kid:

 

[articulett]

That kid was awesome. I wish I was that self assured when I was young. The other kid seemed so... dumb. Bill-O is his own worst enemy.

 

[JoeEllison]

And I think this thread contained a lot more O'Reilly nuttiness than his Peabody award lie--

I don't think I can even like people who defend O'Reilly... they remind me too much of him. I wonder what Pomeroo thinks knowing that he sounds like O'Reilly and Tokenconservative-- is he proud to sound like them? Does he realize he's similar in personality? Do these folks like each other... Does Coulter like O'Reilly... I just find all of them so slimy and dishonest and hypocritical.

Yeah, and I don't buy the argument that they are good people "deep down", or that you can't judge someone based on their political viewpoint, because this isn't really about politics. People like O'Reilly and Coulter get to be popular by being as ugly, dishonest, and mean-spirited as they can possibly be, and their fans love them for it. Since the fans don't get paid, we can assume that they get their kicks from listening to O'Reilly and Coulter(and pretty much everyone on Fox "News") be terrible human beings. It is clear what that makes O'Reilly's fans, don't you think?

 

[Richard Masters]

My brother and his fiance were talking to me this afternoon, and somehow O'Reilly came up. I mentioned that I don't hold the man in high regard, and they told me how they actually find him to be decent. We talked about it for a little while, but the conversation was cut short by my uncle thinking we were talking about Steven Colbert.

I would appreciate some links to clear demonstrations of O'Reilly's spinning, lying, and overt propaganda to send to my brother's fiance. She seemed open to consideration.

Alternately, if you think O'Reilly is a really great guy, I would be interested to see how he has done something positive for, well, anybody (besides himself and his agenda).

Much thanks!

Look up the "Paris Business Review" on Google.

 

[Richard Masters]

Here is O'Reilly getting pwnd by a high school kid:

Priceless.

 

[articulett]

Yeah, and I don't buy the argument that they are good people "deep down", or that you can't judge someone based on their political viewpoint, because this isn't really about politics. People like O'Reilly and Coulter get to be popular by being as ugly, dishonest, and mean-spirited as they can possibly be, and their fans love them for it. Since the fans don't get paid, we can assume that they get their kicks from listening to O'Reilly and Coulter(and pretty much everyone on Fox "News") be terrible human beings. It is clear what that makes O'Reilly's fans, don't you think?

Yeah, I do. I mean I hate to be all judgmental, but I think I'd have a visceral dislike for someone who mentioned that they liked Bill O'Reilly. What do these people think when they watch the clip above? I think Bill-o and the religious kid look like total stupid prigs... and the other kid sounded so mature and eloquent. I can't imagining people looking at that and seeing Bill and the other kid as actually saying something valuable. I think he's so close to a parody of a bigot, that Steven Colbert hardly has to do anything to tweak his persona into great comedy.

To Me, those who like that ilk see the world through a very distorted lens that has been molded by propaganda in the same manner that religion molds thinking. These people seem to let the spin doctors tell them what to think and then they spout it back... but they don't think on their own. They've lost the ability to see the egregious behavior of their spokespeople while exaggerating to the point of digressing ridiculousness the smallest pecadillos of their opponents--those evil leftist godless commie secularists jews etc. They're so "red necky" and the personification of the "boorish American". They embarrass me. I'm embarrassed that people in my country like them even.

It's so childish... "good guys" and "bad guys" and fear and "going to hell in handbasket" and "American values"... blah, blah propaganda, blah... I look forward to a time when this era in history is laughed at like Leisure Suits and pet rocks.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Bill O'Reilly is a Conspiracy Theorist!!!

 

[mrbaracuda]

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.

I don't favor his attacks over yours or any factual discussion. Go back again and you will see that I don't see his posts as favourable, but as less aggressive and not as emotional rants. Mind you, English's not my first language, so some things might not be so clear in the first run, especially when it's like five in the morning. I just have the feeling that you people who dislike O'Reilly for whatever reasons vent your anger about O'Reilly partly on pomeroo, who, like me, doesn't seem to give much about O'Reilly in the first place. And that seperates us from you, skeptigirl, who seem to have a slight obsession with "the evil character O'Reilly".

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.

To say she's a vile person I'd have to know her, right? Which I said I don't. Apart from that, it's an emotional viewpoint. So much for "going back to your posts".
I was merely judging her from the mentioned interview and discussed whether it's anti-Semitic or not. But thanks for putting me together with people like "fundies", whatever they want, just for the sake of it.

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.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ
http://youtube.com/watch?v=trOdCU6aZOg

Nope, can't do recognize that, because I find it to be not true and that is probably what pomeroo meant when he said you create lies about him just to keep him discredited. Now, I'm not saying everything O'Reilly says is true, but I've also said that I don't care that much about him. Whether or not he's been 'in action' as a reporter or combatant, had a personal impact on the French market or not, I don't care.

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.

Typically, eh? He typically attacks them like that. In an interview. Which you said is typical of him. Ah huh. I have not seen a pattern emerge in the interviews I've seen, sorry. Why don't you let loose of Glick, which I saw before by the way, who is more or less full of it (as in "we trained them decades ago so we're responsible for their actions now", or whatever) and present a recent example? Other than 9/11 twoofers. If it's so typical, it can't be hard, although I don't know how often there are guests on "The Factor".

And I mean the typical mic cutting and attacking.

Not that I would care more about O'Reilly, which seems to be the main thing that seperates us from each other: You give too much about O'Reilly than he's probably worth, stemming mainly from your emotions as it looks.

ETA

Oh my, look at evil O'Reilly go at Marylin Manson, giving him almost no time to get his view across! http://youtube.com/watch?v=G6n5Oi4714o&feature=related
How could he invite Manson just to shout him down, tell him to shut up and cut his mic!

Sigh.

 

[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:



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.


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.


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.


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


Yes. I am.


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.


Care to show actual dishonesty from people here?

Thought not. That's not your style.


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


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!"


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...


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...


Oh yeah. That ain't aggressive.

This thread can have no other purpose than to show that Bill O'Reilly is not an unimpeachable source and he isn't above embellishing his own record. As such, it is worthless. No one considers O'Reilly to be a paragon of honesty, just as no one regards him as an intellectual force in modern conservatism.

A thread such as this one could be useful if it demanded more accountability from our politicians and pundits. I prize honesty very highly and wonder why others are so indifferent, or more precisely, so selectively indifferent. Why should I excuse "my side" for ethical lapses I would be quick to condemn in the oppoisng side?

A moral idiot on the Huffpo dared to write a column on "Dick Cheney's Chappaquiddick," the shooting accident that injured one of Cheney's friends. The writer doesn't care that Ted Kennedy drove a car off a bridge, managed to free himself, swam to safety, and allowed a young woman trapped in the car to die slowly. Kennedy was a married man at the time--forget that: nobody cares. But, Kennedy got himself home and summoned his inner circle and plotted his next step. All the while, a woman was dying slowly. After the crime was discovered, Kennedy engineered a massive cover-up that made a mockery of the law.

And liberals love the bastard. Kennedy has been described as "the Conscience of the Democratic Party." (Skeptigirl, you can save time hunting for a loon-site that will whitewash Teddy: nobody would begin to know how to make the attempt.)

"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." Yes, you "remember" it, but it didn't happen. That's my point.

 

[pomeroo]

What does Moore have anything to do with O'Reilly's lack of credibility?

Or would you like to talk some more about Savage?

Once we establish that Bill O'Reilly is less than completely honest, what is your point? Do you condemn dishonesty in pundits and pols? Manifestly, you do not. Why do you care so little about the dishonesty of your own side?

 

[m_huber]

This thread can have no other purpose than show that Bill O'Reilly is not an unimpeachable source and he isn't above embellishing his own record. As such, it is worthless. No one considers O'Reilly to be a paragon of honesty, just as no one regards him as an intellectual force in modern conservatism.

Um, I started this thread because I wanted to know more about Bill O'Reilly. I have heard him attacked and defended in passing, but I wanted to know if there was a better defensible position, or if it was all opinion. It would appear that there is a better position: that BillO is not worth listening to because he has a tendency to belittle interviewees, invent sources and statistics, and stretch facts about events and anecdotes he is reporting about. If I wanted to know about political leaders, I would have started a thread about a different individual (and that may not be a bad idea).

 

[pomeroo]

Um, I started this thread because I wanted to know more about Bill O'Reilly. I have heard him attacked and defended in passing, but I wanted to know if there was a better defensible position, or if it was all opinion. It would appear that there is a better position: that BillO is not worth listening to because he has a tendency to belittle interviewees, invent sources and statistics, and stretch facts about events and anecdotes he is reporting about. If I wanted to know about political leaders, I would have started a thread about a different individual (and that may not be a bad idea).

I'm not complaining about your motives in starting the thread. I watch O'Reilly's show occasionally. Sometimes I find him overbearing, frequently I agree with his politics, always I cringe when he declares himself an "independent," but, in general, I enjoy his performance. There's a good deal of blarney to Bill's bluster, but he is smart. He finds interesting guests and prods them into saying things they didn't expect to hear themselves saying on the air. He's an acquired taste, but he's better than his detractors.

 

[Lonewulf]

*giant huge meaningless rant that has little to nothing to do with Bill O'Reilly*

He's an acquired taste, but he's better than his detractors.

Haha, okay.

It's time to laugh and move on.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't favor his attacks over yours or any factual discussion. Go back again and you will see that I don't see his posts as favourable, but as less aggressive and not as emotional rants. ...
Sigh.

My opinion of O'Reilly and Coulter are based on knowing their stuff very well. You may have whatever opinion of them you wish but you admit to not knowing them well. A couple YouTube slivers are not going to change the opinion of anyone here that has seen O'Reilly on a regular basis.

As far as pomy goes, you are new to the board. Pomeroo has not only posted the most rude and awful stuff about me, he has done the same about anyone who doesn't share his political views. Pomy also went stalking my posts and reported them falsely to the admin with fabricated claims that I had quoted entire sources which I had not done.

So again, you judge the situation from a very narrow viewpoint. Maybe you should observe a bit more before jumping to your hasty conclusions.

 

[OneShotKi11]

I heard Big Bill had a sexual harassment case going on against him.....

Is this ture?

 

[Upchurch]

Once we establish that Bill O'Reilly is less than completely honest, what is your point?

If you had read the OP, you would know that the point of the thread is to provide concrete examples of Bill O'Reilly's dishonesty, or examples to the contrary.

Here, take a look:

I would appreciate some links to clear demonstrations of O'Reilly's spinning, lying, and overt propaganda to send to my brother's fiance. She seemed open to consideration.

Alternately, if you think O'Reilly is a really great guy, I would be interested to see how he has done something positive for, well, anybody (besides himself and his agenda).

I'm sorry if it makes you feel uncomfortable, but that is the point.

Do you condemn dishonesty in pundits and pols? Manifestly, you do not. Why do you care so little about the dishonesty of your own side?

First, I don't have a "side". There are positions I agree with and positions I don't agree with. Second, I very much do condemn dishonesty when I see it.

If you think otherwise, I challenge you to back your claim.

 

[Lurker]

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?

Hmm, quite interesting. You provided a single anecdote to support the notion that Bill's call for a boycott had an effect. Yet wouldn't it have been so much better to have actual budget numbers from the Paris Business Review like Bill O'Reilly had?

 

[Ladewig]

This thread can have no other purpose than to show that Bill O'Reilly is not an unimpeachable source and he isn't above embellishing his own record.

Yes, that is the purpose

As such, it is worthless. No one considers O'Reilly to be a paragon of honesty, just as no one regards him as an intellectual force in modern conservatism.

Here is where you are wrong. It is very easy to find folks that believe Bill is an intellectual force and is not only very honest, but also fair and balanced.

A thread such as this one could be useful if it demanded more accountability from our politicians and pundits. I prize honesty very highly and wonder why others are so indifferent, or more precisely, so selectively indifferent. Why should I excuse "my side" for ethical lapses I would be quick to condemn in the oppoisng side?

Feel free to start a thread documenting those ethical lapses.

A moral idiot on the Huffpo dared to write a column on "Dick Cheney's Chappaquiddick," the shooting accident that injured one of Cheney's friends.

If you are looking for people to agree that that columnist is a moral idiot, then I will agree with you. However the big difference is that Bill O'Reilly spends 10 hours each week on Fox Radio and 5 hours each week on Fox News channel. A friend of a liberal blogger really doesn't have the same clout as someone who has access to 15 hours of media time. The two people are general not held to the same standard.