• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

O'Reilly: funeral attendence required

hgc

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Jun 14, 2002
Messages
15,892
Bill O'Reilly's "Talking Points" from last night was a tongue-lashing of non-attendees to Reagan's funeral. It was the typical, unremarkable nonsense, but this personal bit struck me as odd...
When my father died some years back, a few people whom my dad had helped out didn't come to the funeral. I checked the situation out and found those people had no valid excuse for not going. They just didn't want to. I have never spoken to those people again.
I am curious to know just how he went about investigating whether or not someone had a valid excuse to skip Daddy O'Reilly's funeral. Did he call them up and ask directly, or did he sniff it out by other means?
 
It never ceases to amaze (and amuse) the extent to which the O'Reilly Factor is just that -- the O'Reilly factor. I've never seen a talking head so thoroughly self-absorbed.

LEAD STORY: Who slighted Billl this week?
 
This is just a hard thing for me to comprehend. Why is it that some people actually brag about how petty and vindictive they are? For you old-timers here, this may remind you of the story of BigFig and the snake.
 
What an idiot. Why is it imperative for the world's leaders to come to the funeral of a man who has been out of politics for 16 years? Sure, it might be nice, but O'Reilley is elevating it to some sort of obligation. He ignores the fact that Canada's prime minister during much of the Reagan years will be there and be delivering a eulogy, as well as Canada's Governor General - the figurative head of state (rep of the queen).

When Trudeau died in 2000, he was also 16 years retired. Where was the US president? Not at the funeral. And I'm sure O'Reilley didn't express any outrage over that.

Also - why do I get the feeling that he would not be so upset if it was the funeral of Clinton?
 
I was flipping through channels and saw this silliness. O'Reilly really does run the pro-wrestling equivalent of news shows.
 
I wonder if O'Reilly remembers when Reagan refused to attend the funeral of Leonid Breshnev and sent the veep instead.
 
I checked the situation out and found those people had no valid excuse for not going. They just didn't want to. I have never spoken to those people again.

If only he stopped broadcasting to all the people who didn't go as well.

I saw 15 seconds the other night and he was complaining about how negative the media has been in its coverage of Reagan. Not only haven't I even heard the word "contra" over the last week, I've been stunned at the over-the-top tributes from all sides, yet O'Reilly complains about some liberal media bias. I assume that when Clinton dies, Fox will never mention the word "Monica." Oh, wait, they will. I guess getting a little head is worse then trading arms for hostages and illegally financing a war without telling Congress, only to hide behind the protections of the same Constitution you subverted.
 
zultr:
"If only he stopped broadcasting to all the people who didn't go as well."

As usual, the US and the UK media are suffering from Collective Amnesia ... again. It`s disgusting that they are ignoring the entire man and his works.

Refer for example to the UK media's performance within hours of the death of Ludwig Hoch, aka Robert "the bouncing Czech" Maxwell. Through the despotism of a fat chequebook and the UK libel laws that were made for it, Maxwell had held the lid on for decades. When he died, the media revelations were appalling to those not in the know (---and yet his sons who were up to their necks in it are thriving today at the head of a big business in the City.)

No such behaviour in the US of A with its massively monopolised media, or the UK concerning Reagan however. Instead they are largely devoted to entertainment and wallpaper, such as the pictures of Reagan's saddled horse complete with reversed boots, as if he had been a cavalry officer or noted rancher, instead of bad actor turned celebrity presenter on behalf of GE and the rest of the military-industrial mafia.

This is just about all the monopoly mainstream US TV and UK TV and media do now---deifications, ennoblements and just wars. c.f. the treatment of "Mayor of the World" Rudy Giuliani for his comportment during the WTC episode. Our Queen, via T. Bliar, actually dubbed him Knight of the Realm---this man whose father was caught in the act of an armed robbery for the Mob, and whose relations with women belong in a psychiatric manual and who, instead of being ennobled for 9/11, should have been indicted for it.

Ronald Reagan during his Presidency delivered exactly what he was recruited to do: folksy, hearty warmth in the midst of cold, brutal porkbarrel politics and imperial ruthlessness.

As far as the monopoly US and UK TV AND media is concerned today, US federal politics is conducted with all the decorum of a Church tea-party and the President is equal in probity and honour to the Pope.

Stick to the internet for now!

quote:
"If the right people had been in charge of Nixon’s funeral, his casket would have been launched into one of those open-sewage canals that empty into the ocean just south of Los Angeles. He was a swine of a man and a jabbering dupe of a president. Nixon was so crooked that he needed servants to help him screw his pants on every morning. Even his funeral was illegal. He was queer in the deepest way. His body should have been burned in a trash bin."
(Hunter S. Thompson, Rolling Stone, June 16, 1994)

Ditto for Reagan.
Anything else is a huge insult to the thousands upon thousands of innocent people who were murdered and tortured in South America under his watch...because that was the reality of Reaganism exported, the American people got off relatively lightly.
 
Nasarius said:


Very true. But CNN usually manages decent results with their non-scientific polls.

I agree. The Fox poll is so out of whack with what others credible polls suggest that something doesn't pass the stink test.
 
Hmmm... It is my understanding that those who attend a president's funeral are there by invitation only, decided by a president and his family after he leaves office. It is also my understanding that B. Clinton still hasn't responded to the White House per his funeral request. Anyone have the specs?
 
Nasarius said:


Very true. But CNN usually manages decent results with their non-scientific polls.

Well, we are talking about Fox here, which means you should read the disclaimer and replace "scientific" with "believable."
 
So, is he suggesting that the U.S. use the attendance list of R. Reagan's funeral as a factor in shaping international policy? If not, then what is his point.
 

Back
Top Bottom