Randi and O'Reilly?

ChrisPowers said:
That's interesting. I would say that shunning a person because their political viewpoint doesn't agree with yours is diametrically opposed to my values as a skeptic, but then, what do I know--I have so glaringly few posts on the JREF Forum.
Click to expand...

Did I say anything about his political viewpoint? I said he was a liar and demagogue, qualities which have nothing to do with one's politics. Furthermore, this "accusation" is far from unfounded (I'd be happy to provide evidence, if you like), and has a direct bearing on our values as skeptics, so your objection that it's a personal attack rings hollow.

ChrisPowers said:
Of course, as a civilized and erudite community, we can all agree that resorting to personal attacks is reprehensible and demonstrates desperation on the part of the accuser. Oh wait...
Click to expand...

You're right. Maybe we should use O'Reilly as our role model. Oh, wait...:rolleyes:
 
The trouble with O'reilly is that he is a "you're either with us or against us" type of guy which is something that I can't see J.Randi going along with. They would make rather uncomfortable bedfellows.
 
Last edited:
ChrisPowers said:
Hmm, do you think maybe there's a chance he was being facetious when he referred to his performance as an "act" and called himself "effete" while on The Colbert Report? Because, if you really think that amounts to an admission that he's a phony, I might also like to point out to you that Jonathan Swift was not actually admitting to cannibalism when he wrote A Modest Proposal and Lou Costello actually did know Who was on first.
Click to expand...

O'Reilly being facetious about being "effete" doesn't seem to be the format of the show. Most guests on Colbert are serious, and in fact tend to leak the truth even when seeming to be facetious. For example, when Depak Chopra was interviewed, Colbert asked him,"Are you a prophet?" to which Chopra answered "Yes, but it's spelled P-R-O-F-I-T." Dawkins was on Colbert and was awesome, laughing a few times at Colbert's clowning but Dawkins' remarks were serious and accurate. The format of Colbert's interviews is the guest is straight and Colbert is the clown. It makes no sense that O'Reilly would have said these things faceciously. Did he chuckle and say "just kidding" afterwards? Not his style.

ChrisPowers said:
Of course, your "Republican party line" comment puzzles me since, as you do watch the show, you're aware of how many positions he has that are in direct opposition to that "party line" and just how often he criticizes President Bush and defends Democrats when they're being unfairly attacked.
Click to expand...

I watch the show as little as possible, but it's in Fox's and O'Reilly's play book to only throw an occasional softball criticism at the right, such as "they're don't stand up to the Democrats enough," and save the hardballs for enemies of the administration. Check out O'Reilly's interview with the son of a WTC casualty to view his style, where he tells his crew, "shut his mike off" when the guest stands up to repeated rude interruptions by O'Reilly (see Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism (2004))

Physical evidence has surfaced that Fox News, run by former Republican campaign strategist Roger Ailes, is for all intents and purposes, a propaganda wing of the Republican Party.

Since Randi has called Republicans "stupid" in his commentary, IIRC, he'd be smart to romance Fox News with hesitation.
 
This thread is what scares me about this site. I cannot believe that anyone with a serious opinion watches Cooper, O'reilly or any of the others. Both shows are for... whatever. If you don't know keep watching, it is where you belong. New York Times Book review intelligence, it fools many but is no more informed than your Uncle Jack who has never left the woods. It just sounds better.
 
We don't have them here in Australia, but I feel the same about all the current affairs programs on the commercial networks. You're dumber after watching them. Seeing as I can't afford to get any more so, I avoid them like the plague.
 
TheChadd said:
Yea and of course calling the US a terrorist organization should immediately, without question, lose you the debate - Right?
Click to expand...

Yes ... as it posits an erroneous starting point. Sort of like asking "when did you stop beating your wife?"

Can you explain to me the justification for the aggressive US actions against Cuba for the past 50 years, for starters.
Click to expand...

Sure ... as soon as you post the US organization(s) (and the evidence) that brainwash children to go strap bombs on themselves and blow themselves up in public gatherings. Oh, and let's not leave out the televised be-headings.

Oh .. and why are you equating aggressive as terrorist? The two are not synonymous.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom