Bill O'Reilly

[Lurker]

1) The mind boggles how you are incapable of comprehending how Hollywood celebs command an unfair platform using their fame, sometime glamour, and association to their flickering screen images, to make asinine political comments in forums they know they will never worry about being challenged.

Yes, they have an "unfair" platform. My point was their opinion is not necessarily more or less valid than yours. I note that just like them, you have a tendency to bring no actual evidence to the table and when confronted on this you usually tend to avoid, change the subject, or engage in ad homs. It seems you don't worry about being challenged either becasue you don't address the substance of a challenge.

2) Considering I respond to your nebulous observations, how exactly do I emulate lib celebs that never engage with those who hold opposing views?

See above.

3) I could not help notice that you didn't express an opinion why lib actors are reticent to put their actions where their mouth is and run for a political office.

Who knows, who cares.

4) I also am not invited to appear in a venue ostensibly to promote a movie/TV show/CD and then throw out bug wit political buffoonery. This is a political forum. Every poster has the same authority in making their points. Not the case when it comes to these celebs you seem to hold in such high esteem.

I don't hold them in high esteem. I value their political opinion as much as the next joe blow off the street. I do think it is silly if people value an actors opinion but I am not sure how endemic that problem is.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Alas, it actually came from parisbusinessreview.net.

I can't nominate you in good concience then, but kudos for finding and posting it here and giving me a chuckle.

 

[varwoche]

Cicero, you didn't respond to the most important part:

you are allowed to go on and on and never substantiate your sloganeering

You make unsupported assertions. You are challenged. Then you change the subject, like this is some sort of Kevin Bacon board game.

Like here. And like here, where you you were caught lying outright, and instead of fessing up you (clumsily!) move the goalpost hither and yon. You see, unlike the celebrities you fixate on, you are posting on a skeptical forum where it is customary to support your assertions, or substantiate your sloganeering as the case may be.

I'm not greatly interested in your claims about celebrities -- who the hell cares? But for the sake of your doting readership, you should either support your claims or else retract them.

 

[Upchurch]

1) The mind boggles how you are incapable of comprehending how Hollywood celebs command an unfair platform using their fame, sometime glamour, and association to their flickering screen images, to make asinine political comments in forums they know they will never worry about being challenged.

I have a couple of questions about this first point:

1. How is it unfair?
2. Going back to the topic, do you also consider it unfair that O'Reilly uses his fame to make asinine political comments in forums that he knows he will never worry about being challenged? (After all, he only has to cut their mics.)

 

[Cicero]

Cicero, you didn't respond to the most important part: You make unsupported assertions. You are challenged. Then you change the subject, like this is some sort of Kevin Bacon board game.

Like here. And like here, where you you were caught lying outright, and instead of fessing up you (clumsily!) move the goalpost hither and yon. You see, unlike the celebrities you fixate on, you are posting on a skeptical forum where it is customary to support your assertions, or substantiate your sloganeering as the case may be.

I'm not greatly interested in your claims about celebrities -- who the hell cares? But for the sake of your doting readership, you should either support your claims or else retract them.

Unless you have christened yourself the official arbiter of truth, justice and the American way, re-posting ad nauseam your posts and someone else's that purports to invalidate my contention that Streisand and Penn are "truth" grunions, that are based on their own words and actions, does not constitute definitive, or even indefinite, debunking.

A skeptical forum? I suppose anything can be taken to absolute absurd limits, but skepticism of Streisand and Penn as "truth" grunions is not exactly in the same arena as faked moon landings and Bush/Israel/Media 911 conspriacies.

 

[Cicero]

I have a couple of questions about this first point:

1. How is it unfair?
2. Going back to the topic, do you also consider it unfair that O'Reilly uses his fame to make asinine political comments in forums that he knows he will never worry about being challenged? (After all, he only has to cut their mics.)

One would think the painfully obvious, if not the merely obvious, would negate such a question.

He is not using his "fame" to make political observations. He was hired to do just that! He also reads critical emails of his comments on air. By the way, he has cut a person's mike maybe twice. Or does this "skeptical" forum only require corroborating evidence from conservatives?

 

[Upchurch]

One would think the painfully obvious, if not the merely obvious, would negate such a question.

In the free market place of ideas, like the free market itself, some people have more advantage than others. As a conservative, do you think everyone should be force to disregard their advantages when buy, selling, or politicking?

He is not using his "fame" to make political observations. He was hired to do just that!

So, doing it for free indicates less credibility?

He also reads critical emails of his comments on air. By the way, he has cut a person's mike maybe twice. Or does this "skeptical" forum only require corroborating evidence from conservatives?

His screeners also keep certain topics from even reaching the air. He picks the critical emails he can easily dismiss. He shouts down most other dissent.

 

[Cicero]

In the free market place of ideas, like the free market itself, some people have more advantage than others. As a conservative, do you think everyone should be force to disregard their advantages when buy, selling, or politicking?



So, doing it for free indicates less credibility?



His screeners also keep certain topics from even reaching the air. He picks the critical emails he can easily dismiss. He shouts down most other dissent.

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.

Anyone tuning into O'Reiily is getting EXACTLY what they not only expect, but demand.

Do you think Dori Anisman does not screen callers into NPR's Diane Rehm show? Or Air America does not screen callers? Does KO even read any critical emails of his views at the end of his show?

 

[varwoche]

Unless you have christened yourself the official arbiter of truth, justice and the American way, re-posting ad nauseam your posts and someone else's that purports to invalidate my contention that Streisand and Penn are "truth" grunions, that are based on their own words and actions, does not constitute definitive, or even indefinite, debunking.

A skeptical forum? I suppose anything can be taken to absolute absurd limits, but skepticism of Streisand and Penn as "truth" grunions is not exactly in the same arena as faked moon landings and Bush/Israel/Media 911 conspriacies.

Thank you for illustrating my point with such a perfectly distilled example!

This is exactly the sort of dishonest goalpost movement I was referring to, seeing as you didn't merely call Streisand and Penn "truth grunions", which in itself is BS given the implication of the term, but you made a specific assertion:

Rosie, Penn, Sheen, and Streisand have proclaimed 911 to be an inside job.

 

[DavidJames]

But for the sake of your doting readership, you should either support your claims or else retract them.

Not surprisingly, in his response he makes the claims yet again and yet again fails to support them. But the funniest part is he attempt to dismiss his failures by trying to compare them to moon hoaxers and 9/11 CTists. What our little friend fails to get is he is, by making claims without substantiation, doing exactly what they are doing.

 

[Upchurch]

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.

And they are not allowed to do anything else once they've been pigeon holed into a profession?

I take it you are opposed to O'Reilly's book?

Anyone tuning into O'Reiily is getting EXACTLY what they not only expect, but demand.

Do you think someone listening to one of Sean Penn's lectures is not getting what they expect?

As for O'Reilly, I tune into his radio show from time to time. I'll grant you that he gives me what I expect, but not what I demand. You know, honesty and integrety.

Do you think Dori Anisman does not screen callers into NPR's Diane Rehm show?

I'm sure they do, but I've heard far more critical callers on Diane Rehm's show than I've ever heard on O'Reilly's.

 

[Cicero]

And they are not allowed to do anything else once they've been pigeon holed into a profession?

I take it you are opposed to O'Reilly's book?



Do you think someone listening to one of Sean Penn's lectures is not getting what they expect?

As for O'Reilly, I tune into his radio show from time to time. I'll grant you that he gives me what I expect, but not what I demand. You know, honesty and integrety.



I'm sure they do, but I've heard far more critical callers on Diane Rehm's show than I've ever heard on O'Reilly's.

Sean Penn gives political "lectures?" Now that's an assembly of empty chairs second only to Keanu Reeve's acting class.

You have heard callers critical of Diane Rehm? Other than she is called bias, and the daughter of Arabs, what personel invective has gone out over the air about Diane?

Where did I say that Hollywood celebs can not do anything else? I am the one who suggests they run for political office.

 

[Cicero]

Not surprisingly, in his response he makes the claims yet again and yet again fails to support them. But the funniest part is he attempt to dismiss his failures by trying to compare them to moon hoaxers and 9/11 CTists. What our little friend fails to get is he is, by making claims without substantiation, doing exactly what they are doing.

I did not compare Streisand and Penn's penchant for Bush is responsible for 911 rhetoric to moon landing hoaxers, I said that it is you and your ilk that invoke that type of skepticism usually reserved for such things.

 

[Lurker]

deleted

 

[Upchurch]

Sean Penn gives political "lectures?"

Lectures, speeches, whatever. He gets up at a podium and talks. Most people are polite enough to listen.

Where did I say that Hollywood celebs can not do anything else?

You said it was unfair. I assumed you thought that they should not do what you deem "unfair". My apologies if you thought otherwise.

I noticed you did not answer why you find it unfair. Is that because you choose not to or because you are unable to?

I tuned into O'Reilly's show while I was in the car just now. He was using his fame to sell Bose radios. Do you think that it is an unfair for him to use his fame in this way? If not, why not?

 

[Lurker]

Whatever happened to the conservatives who said, "Life isn't fair. Deal with it."

Now that Cicero has detected some unfairness in celebrities being allowed their soapboxes, I expect he will use his sleuthing abilities to discover that rich people have more influence on politics than poor people and that isn't fair either. Waaah!

 

[Cleon]

Whatever happened to the conservatives who said, "Life isn't fair. Deal with it."

You silly goose. That's only for other people.

 

[Cicero]

Lectures, speeches, whatever. He gets up at a podium and talks.

I tuned into O'Reilly's show while I was in the car just now. He was using his fame to sell Bose radios. Do you think that it is an unfair for him to use his fame in this way? If not, why not?

I know libs are congenitally incapable of making valid analogies, but this one is priceless. What does "fairness" have to do with advertising? Just as Willem Dafoe does voice over commercials for Buick Century, Qwest, Salomon Smith Barney, Jaguar automobiles, and Martin Sheen, Donald Sutherland and James Earl Jones use their voices to sell products, I imagine Bose pays O'Reilly to promote their wares.

Did I say it was unfair for Oprah to endorse Obama?

I initially referenced Kirk Douglas, who said actors that use their celebrity as a megaphone for their political posturing provides them with an "unfair platform." This is not to be confused with actors, such as Charlton Heston, who was a vocal proponent of civil rights and marched with MLK. Douglas was speaking about those celebs, who in the course of their promoting their Hollywood product, think its fine to liberally sprinkle in political slogans at the same time.

I am not the originator of this sentiment, only a subscriber to it.

 

[Cicero]

Whatever happened to the conservatives who said, "Life isn't fair. Deal with it."

Now that Cicero has detected some unfairness in celebrities being allowed their soapboxes, I expect he will use his sleuthing abilities to discover that rich people have more influence on politics than poor people and that isn't fair either. Waaah!

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

By your own board rules, I guess you should not even have mentioned how money influences politics since it is so obvious and there is nothing one can, or should, do about it.

 

[Upchurch]

I know libs are congenitally incapable of making valid analogies, but this one is priceless. What does "fairness" have to do with advertising?

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?