What's So Bad About Bill O'Reilly?

hammegk said:
How does Oldermann stack up?
Click to expand...

Ha, ha. You changed his name to make a joke. Oh, that's a good one, ha ha. I haven't laughed so hard since Rush Limbaugh referred to Mrs. Clinton as "Hitlery Clinton." Ha, ha, stop it. No really, I mean it - stop it.
 
hammegk said:
Yup, at times he's factually incorrect. Can you provide an example of someone under the scrutiny O'Reilly gets with 1hr/5 day a week platform who doesn't make mistakes and get caught in them.

How does Oldermann stack up? Or pick your own example.
Click to expand...
Someone started a thread about O'Reilly, and I've responded about O'Reilly. If you don't think the topic of the thread is expansive enough, then you expand on it.

Isn't the actual problem that you just don't agree with O.R's viewpoints, not the facts presented.
Click to expand...
Are you guessing what's in my mind now? Just take what I've said, and answer it if you can. Otherwise what are you doing here?
 
hammegk said:
Yup, at times he's factually incorrect. Can you provide an example of someone under the scrutiny O'Reilly gets with 1hr/5 day a week platform who doesn't make mistakes and get caught in them.

How does Oldermann stack up? Or pick your own example. Isn't the actual problem that you just don't agree with O.R's viewpoints, not the facts presented.
Click to expand...

I'll bet that most broadcasters who are on five days a week occasionaly make mistakes. But an honest mistake is one thing, citing a statistic from a make believe journal is another:

O'REILLY: No, it will take place, madam. In France ...
MALLICK: I don't think that your French boycott has done too well ...
O'REILLY: ...they've lost billions of dollars in France according to "The Paris Business Review."
MALLICK: I think that's nonsense.
Click to expand...
It's hard for me to believe that was an honest mistake (as has been pointed out, there's no such periodical, and I'm pretty sure there's zero evidence that his boycott cost France billions of dollars).

And his "they're trying to ban Christmas" shtick should win some kind of award for most ridiculous strawman.

Finally, a journalist who lies about winning a journalism award doesn't have much credibility in my view:

In February, O'Reilly gave a speech seemingly taking credit for winning a coveted Peabody award while an anchor at the tabloid TV show Inside Edition. After comedian Al Franken pointed out that the show never won a Peabody, O'Reilly retorted, in Mamet-esque syntax (O'Reilly Factor, 3/13/01): "Guy says about me, couple of weeks ago, 'O'Reilly said he won a Peabody Award.' Never said it. You can't find a transcript where I said it."

But on his May 19, 2000 broadcast, he repeatedly told a guest who brought up his tabloid past: "We won Peabody Awards. . . . We won Peabody awards. . . . A program that wins a Peabody Award, the highest award in journalism, and you're going to denigrate it?" (Inside Edition won a Polk Award, not the better-known Peabody, for reporting that was done after O'Reilly left the show--Washington Post, 3/1/01.)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Encapsulating this hilarious exchange...
Ladewig said:
O'Reillt responded by saying that the Paris Business Review had published figures showing that the boycott is hurting the French economy. There is no such thing as the Paris Business Review.
Click to expand...

Huntster said:
Is there such a thing as the Ladewig Review? Check here.
Click to expand...

brodski said:
You do realize that this is a site, set up after Bill O'Riley was caught in his lie, specifically to mock him, don't you?
Click to expand...
 
Huntster said:
I'm:

1) abrasive
2) shill
3) not important at all
4) rude to most.

I'm not funny, and I'm occasionally right. Even a blind squirrel finds the acorn now and then because we direct ourselves by scent.

The world stinks.

O'Reilly pisses everybody off at one time or another.

That doesn't make him wrong.
Click to expand...

Everything above is true but what makes him wrong is that he is a liar and a hypocrite. Do you honestly need some examples. :boggled:

It's has nothing to do with his conservatism and all to do with his hypocrisy.
 
Inexplicably ;) Huntster has left the room. Maybe he's catching up on old issues of the Paris Business Review.
 
varwoche said:
Inexplicably ;) Huntster has left the room. Maybe he's catching up on old issues of the Paris Business Review.
Click to expand...

Nope. I've been getting the estate ready for winter, and getting ready for a caribou hunt.

I've never read the Paris Business Review, but I am very aware of the Alaska Business Monthly.
 
Huntster said:
Nope. I've been getting the estate ready for winter, and getting ready for a caribou hunt.

I've never read the Paris Business Review, but I am very aware of the Alaska Business Monthly.
Click to expand...

It's ok, Hunster, we all make mistakes (well, except O'Reilly who has never admitted to a mistake).

Lurker
 
From the O'Reilly Factor, Jan 19, 2005

Bill "discusses" evolution with biologist Michael Grant:


GRANT: Science is always incomplete in all areas.

O’REILLY: Well, I don’t agree with that. Science is not always incomplete and I’ll give you an example. There are twenty-four hours in a day. Alright. That’s science. And there are four seasons. That’s science. So you can state things with certainty in biology or any other science you want.

There's more here: http://www.newshounds.us/2005/01/19/oreilly_defends_intelligent_design_your_belly_laugh_for_the_day.php
 
Lurker said:
Originally Posted by Huntster
Nope. I've been getting the estate ready for winter, and getting ready for a caribou hunt.

I've never read the Paris Business Review, but I am very aware of the Alaska Business Monthly.
Click to expand...
It's ok, Hunster, we all make mistakes.........
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm ready for winter, and I'm going hunting Thursday afternoon for 3 full days.

How can I possibly be making a mistake?
 
KilgoreTrout said:
O’REILLY: Well, I don’t agree with that. Science is not always incomplete and I’ll give you an example. There are twenty-four hours in a day. Alright. That’s science. And there are four seasons. That’s science. So you can state things with certainty in biology or any other science you want.
Click to expand...
I'll grant him the 24 hour thing, just to be nice. But what kind of flippin' moron thinks that there's some kind of scientific difinitiveness about 4 seasons? That's the Ann Coulter school of scientific instruction -- blustering ignorance prancing about in the guise of blustering authority.
 
hgc said:
I'll grant him the 24 hour thing, just to be nice. But what kind of flippin' moron thinks that there's some kind of scientific difinitiveness about 4 seasons? That's the Ann Coulter school of scientific instruction -- blustering ignorance prancing about in the guise of blustering authority.
Click to expand...
It's science that there are 26 letters in the alphabet.


the english alphabet.
 
A human created arbitrary measure of time called an hour is not science.

There could be 16 flapdoodles in a day. Or even 456 skippillions per day. Call a unit of time whatever you want, it ain't science. Even when it is called hours.

But to the scientifically illiterate mind of O'Reilly, it is. Sad.

Lurker
 
Lurker said:
A human created arbitrary measure of time called an hour is not science.

There could be 16 flapdoodles in a day. Or even 456 skippillions per day. Call a unit of time whatever you want, it ain't science. Even when it is called hours.

But to the scientifically illiterate mind of O'Reilly, it is. Sad.

Lurker
Click to expand...

Actually, Lurker - there are 465 skippillons in a day. I realize that must have been a typo, but "science" is quite a bit more exact. You can imagine what would happen in a laboratory if you were to raise the temperature of a Rashopap to 1000°C for only 456 skippillons instead of the required 465. ;)
 
Isn't it about time some annoying schmuck comes around asking what science illiteracy was displayed by Keith Olbermann, for comparison purposes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom