NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm curious about the opinions that posters here have of Bill O'Reilly, the Fox News anchor and host of the ever popular O'Reilly Factor. Feel free to sling mud or spout unsubstantiated rhetoric. I know I will. ;)

I personally think he's not bad at all. I don't always agree with him (as if I ever agree with anyone completely ;) ), but he actually doesn't seem too far right of center, but everyone seems to think he's way too conservative, except for a few who think he's much too liberal. Actually, he just seems to annoy a lot of people, which I think is a good sign. When people are annoyed, they're generally having to actually think about something. I've seen him do misleading stories with some serious spin in his "no spin zone", but every network has misleading stories occasionally, and he's only slightly more hypocritical than the rest about it.

http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=bill_oreilly

Putz, schmuck, illegitimate bastard love-child of a rabid mongoose and Eva Braun all leap to mind.

i tried watching the show and I find it lame. He wont let anyone make a point if he disagrees with them. He will tell them to shut up or cutt off their mic before they can finish their argument. Sure it's his show and he can do what he wants. I just find it silly that he has them there to debate them but doesn't let them speak or make a full point. Kinda ridiculous and a waste of time to watch. He's like a conservative howard Stern when it comes to his "debates"

His views on gay marriage are fine. I haven't heard any of his other views that are fine, though. Too conservative.

I want another option: he's a filthy swine.

I want another option: he's a filthy swine.

I also want the option: the show is too one-sided

I want another option: he's a filthy swine.

I tried to edit in your option, but apparently I don't have permission to edit polls on this board. *sigh*

I'm curious about the opinions that posters here have of Bill O'Reilly, the Fox News anchor and host of the ever popular O'Reilly Factor...


You mean you don't already know that the commie/socialist left wingers who dominate NS hate his guts? Any post with the words O'Reilly, FOX News, or anything romotely conservative is automatically flame bait or doomed to liberal hatred.

I think O'Reilly is great. I'm addicted to the Factor cos it's so bloody funny - i've even started playing Bill O'Reilly Bingo (as in Kanabia's post) and i'm some way through doing a comic about him. 'That's how it's gonna go down'

everyone is talking about how oreilly is too conservative. if you look at polls after watching his show you will reaalize that almost all the time he states an opinion that is held by a majority of the united states. I have been a fan of his show for two years. believe me he is no hard core right winger . he is a moderate. he has some conservative stances and some liberal stances. he is constantly attack by left wing groups and right wing groups at the same time. when that happens to us, we will realize that we are moderats also.

You mean you don't already know that the commie/socialist left wingers who dominate NS hate his guts? Any post with the words O'Reilly, FOX News, or anything romotely conservative is automatically flame bait or doomed to liberal hatred.

sad, but in my experience, very very tue.

Now now, connies, if you ever saw something blatantly left-wing biased in the mainstream media you would have a bitch too, so don't be hypocritical :p

-And he is too conservative. If a moderate in the US is as right wing as he is, I fear for the future of the USA.

everyone is talking about how oreilly is too conservative. if you look at polls after watching his show you will reaalize that almost all the time he states an opinion that is held by a majority of the united states. I have been a fan of his show for two years. believe me he is no hard core right winger . he is a moderate. he has some conservative stances and some liberal stances. he is constantly attack by left wing groups and right wing groups at the same time. when that happens to us, we will realize that we are moderats also.
The majority of people in the US are (too) conservative.

the congress is the heaviest republican majority since the 1920's and bush and crew still have a fair shot at a second term. also, we havent had a 'liberal' president' since 1980. the american public is decidedly conservative, religious, and good. at least in comparison to these forums. Heck, alot of the people on here make john kerry look like rush limbaugh ( now that limbaugh has slimmed down that is)

Now now, connies, if you ever saw something blatantly left-wing biased in the mainstream media you would have a bitch too, so don't be hypocritical :p

-And he is too conservative. If a moderate in the US is as right wing as he is, I fear for the future of the USA.

Your fears are justified. Bill O'Reilly is moderately conservative in terms of American politics.

your fear is justified, there are a growing number of conservatives. especialy young ones, like myself.

your fear is justified, there are a growing number of conservatives. especialy young ones, like myself.

Yep, that's true too.

From what I see around me day to day, the youth left is far stronger and sick of being forgotten about by politicians. So the US can screw itself over to corporate interests if that's really what the population there wants. Doesn't bother me. Theres always emigration for those who want something different...oh wait, that's unpatriotic.

There are times when I agree with him and there are that I do not. What pisses me off about his show is that he doesn't let his guests speak. He cuts them off or shouts them down. Of course it's a "No Spin Zone" because he won't let the guest get two word out of their mouths.

Bush is a contraversial conservative republican president. let me see , the last two of them.......who ran for reelection
1972: nixon, ran against mcgovern( who got no bounce in the polls---like kerry) and beat him 61-39%
1984: reagan, ran against mondale ( who led him at this point in polls more than kerry is leading Bush) and beat him 62-38%
well, the american public DOES like conservatives. all you people who think kerry has it in the bag had better watch your shoulders too. the american public has yet to buy into a guy who is that liberal.

From what I see around me day to day, the youth left is far stronger and sick of being forgotten about by politicians.

The youth and people in general are sick about being forgotten by politicians, which would explain the growing number of people who are anti-government/anarchists. As for the "youth left" being stronger, I'm not so sure. I'm in college now, the stage at which people are supposed to be remarkably liberal, so much of what I see is that "youth left" but I've never noticed them being any stronger than anybody else. I also see that the Baby Boomers, the largest population/voting bloc at this time, tends toward moderate to strong conservatism.

well, the american public DOES like conservatives. all you people who think kerry has it in the bag had better watch your shoulders too. the american public has yet to buy into a guy who is that liberal.

Which isn't necessarily a good thing. The majority isn't always right, it could mean that all the fools are on the same side.

For example, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, a poll showed that the majority of American citizens supported a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the USSR. Now that would most certainly not have been in the interests of that majority, i'm sure we'll all agree. (I'll try and find that again and post link)

There are times when I agree with him and there are that I do not. What pisses me off about his show is that he doesn't let his guests speak. He cuts them off or shouts them down. Of course it's a "No Spin Zone" because he won't let the guest get two word out of their mouths.

He calls it the "No Spin Zone" for a reason. When you spin and go off topic, you get cut off. Usually, not literaly, he'll let you know if you're begining to spin, but won't usually cut people off until the end of a heated interview.

The youth and people in general are sick about being forgotten by politicians, which would explain the growing number of people who are anti-government/anarchists. As for the "youth left" being stronger, I'm not so sure. I'm in college now, the stage at which people are supposed to be remarkably liberal, so much of what I see is that "youth left" but I've never noticed them being any stronger than anybody else. I also see that the Baby Boomers, the largest population/voting bloc at this time, tends toward moderate to strong conservatism.

Well, at my university, and among the general population in my country, the youth left are strong and the vast majority of students here are supporting our green party. very little support, if any, goes from our youth to the conservative Liberal (Yes, our Liberal party is conservative, classical Liberal) or National parties...

Once the baby boomers are gone, as you say...

Which isn't necessarily a good thing. The majority isn't always right, it could mean that all the fools are on the same side.

Quite right. The majority is often wrong. For some reason, many Americans get stuck on this idea that "majority rules!"

majority at some university supports the green party. that is understandable. but that always changes upon entering true adulthood. that 2% vote party ( green) attracts fringes. I know that once those students grow and start to make real money, they will be voting genraly in the same proportions as everyone else.

Well, at my university, and among the general population in my country, the youth left are strong and the vast majority of students here are supporting our green party. very little support, if any, goes from our youth to the conservative Liberal (Yes, our Liberal party is conservative, classical Liberal) or National parties...

It sounds like you are living in an interesting environment.

Once the baby boomers are gone, as you say...

Yeah, I predicted to one of my conservative friends that once the Baby Boomers are gone the form of conservatism that exists now will begin waning, but he disagreed, on the basis that the more recent generation is also more conservative than the previous generation, which he says will balance things out again.

Quite right. The majority is often wrong. For some reason, many Americans get stuck on this idea that "majority rules!"

To quote the Simpsons:

"Wait, we could always vote for a third party!!"
"AND THROWAWAY YOUR VOTE!?"

majority rule? i certainly do not have that impression and my people are in power. look at how the democrats will not give bush's judges an up or down vote. and, Bush himself had less votes than al gore did. so, you know, minority opinion gets a huge amount of time here.

There is no category to vote "I don't watch Bill"

Most shows like that annoy me anyway. No one can finish what they are talking about because they are interrupted, strong possibility it will just turn into a shouting match, or the guests are just plain dumb and don't really represent very well what they are there to talk about.

majority rule? i certainly do not have that impression and my people are in power. look at how the democrats will not give bush's judges an up or down vote. and, Bush himself had less votes than al gore did. so, you know, minority opinion gets a huge amount of time here.

I said that Americans get stuck on the idea, not that our political system always reflects that. Americans are stuck on the idea of equal rights, but are often reluctant to grant them.

bill oreilly likes to say shut up. everyone should watch this. its hilarious:
http://cdn.moveon.org/data/ShutUp_Final_BbandLo.mov

He's a twit with a microphone and a camera.

the congress is the heaviest republican majority since the 1920's and bush and crew still have a fair shot at a second term. also, we havent had a 'liberal' president' since 1980. the american public is decidedly conservative, religious, and good. at least in comparison to these forums. Heck, alot of the people on here make john kerry look like rush limbaugh ( now that limbaugh has slimmed down that is)

We haven't had a liberal president since Nixon.

bill o'reilly got his degree in journalism from harvard ( yes, that harvard) i am sure the person who called him a twit is far above that school for the retarded that is harvard ( sarcasm if you cannot tell)

we have had a liberal president "since nixon" despite of what michael moore says. he was called "jimmy carter". but he was such an awful liberal president that now that 23 years have past liberals want to forget about him. and that is not right.

we have had a liberal president "since nixon" despite of what michael moore says. he was called "jimmy carter". but he was such an awful liberal president that now that 23 years have past liberals want to forget about him. and that is not right.
Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky have both said it, both for entirely different reasons.

look at the record. carter was a classic liberal. he was then. he is now. he was a terrible president. the facts i have all back this up. this is why people like mr. moore love to forget about him.

bill o'reilly got his degree in journalism from harvard ( yes, that harvard) i am sure the person who called him a twit is far above that school for the retarded that is harvard ( sarcasm if you cannot tell)
Dubya got an MBA from Harvard and he's no mental giant either--getting a degree from an elite institution is no guarantee of a lack of twitdom.

P.S.--I hold a fellowship at Stanford right now, so I'm no slouch myself.

i will through out this random off topic theory to these liberals:
global sounds small ( subliminaly)
planetary sounds big
this is why global is always used by liberals. they want to make the earth seem smaller and more inter connected at a sub conscience level.
to quote o'reilly "what say you ?"

oh, fellow from stanford.......what does guarentee one is "free from twitdom"? oh yes, now I remember, being a leftist. thats what was it.....my oh my.


sorry , I couldnt help myself that time.

oh, fellow from stanford.......what does guarentee one is "free from twitdom"? oh yes, now I remember, being a leftist. thats what was it.....my oh my.


sorry , I couldnt help myself that time.
Nah--there are plenty of conservatives who aren't twits. There are a number of them I would gladly vote for and who I enjoy listening to or reading their work. I was just saying that getting a degree from an elite institution doesn't necessarily mean that you're not a twit. We've got plenty of twits on the left too, let me tell you, and they aggravate me even more than the twits on the right. You might try stepping outside your limited point of view sometimes--it's enlightening.

My opinion of Bill:
He is a conservative loud-mouth. To those who say he's moderate if got this to say: maybe moderate for the US but still conservative on the liberal/conservative axis.

He uses spin and paint a higly biased picture that he claims is "the truth" or "that's America". He doesn't let his guests speak and end interviews witch cheap parting shots (as he did with Moore).

I didn't even cared about him untill I heard he was calling for a ban of all that is Canadian because we the Canadian government wouldn't break their laws and due process to send back the would-be refugees who went AWOL instead of going to Iraq. He lost every shredd of credibility I could have had for the guy when he screamed that Canada banned Fox News (false).

Bill O'Reilly is really moronic. He made me dislike watching FOX News and he's all too concerned on his own image without letting other sides of his opinions have a voice on his show (i.e. cutting off mikes, slandering, etc.).

look at the record. carter was a classic liberal. he was then. he is now. he was a terrible president. the facts i have all back this up. this is why people like mr. moore love to forget about him.

Agreed! :D

majority at some university supports the green party. that is understandable. but that always changes upon entering true adulthood. that 2% vote party ( green) attracts fringes. I know that once those students grow and start to make real money, they will be voting genraly in the same proportions as everyone else.

Ah, a supporter of the two party dictatorship, I see.

FYI, the Green party in my country received 5.5% of the vote last election, and their support is expected to be higher for our next one. By the way, you cannot chalk down voting a third way as immature- I find that offensive, not to mention plain stupid.


It sounds like you are living in an interesting environment.

Yeah, I predicted to one of my conservative friends that once the Baby Boomers are gone the form of conservatism that exists now will begin waning, but he disagreed, on the basis that the more recent generation is also more conservative than the previous generation, which he says will balance things out again.

I'd say hopeful rather than interesting :)

I disagree that the recent generation is more conservative, at least in Australia. For example, among voters 18-25 years old that were surveyed post election, conservative parties got a whole 25% of the vote (or thereabouts).

http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=bill_oreilly
Nuff said?

BILL O'REILLY: In the "Personal Stories" segment tonight, we were surprised to find out than an American who lost his father in the World Trade Center attack had signed an anti-war advertisement that accused the USA itself of terrorism.

The offending passage read, "We too watched with shock the horrific events of September 11... we too mourned the thousands of innocent dead and shook our heads at the terrible scenes of carnage -- even as we recalled similar scenes in Baghdad, Panama City, and a generation ago, Vietnam."

With us now is Jeremy Glick, whose father, Barry, was a Port Authority worker at the Trade Center. Mr. Glick is a co-author of the book "Another World is Possible."

I'm surprised you signed this. You were the only one of all of the families who signed...

JEREMY GLICK, FATHER DIED IN WORLD TRADE CENTER: Well, actually, that's not true.

O'REILLY: Who signed the advertisement?

GLICK: Peaceful Tomorrow, which represents 9/11 families, were also involved.

O'REILLY: Hold it, hold it, hold it, Jeremy. You're the only one who signed this advertisement.

GLICK: As an individual.

O'REILLY: Yes, as -- with your name. You were the only one. I was surprised, and the reason I was surprised is that this ad equates the United States with the terrorists. And I was offended by that.

GLICK: Well, you say -- I remember earlier you said it was a moral equivalency, and it's actually a material equivalency. And just to back up for a second about your surprise, I'm actually shocked that you're surprised. If you think about it, our current president, who I feel and many feel is in this position illegitimately by neglecting the voices of Afro-Americans in the Florida coup, which, actually, somebody got impeached for during the Reconstruction period -- Our current president now inherited a legacy from his father and inherited a political legacy that's responsible for training militarily, economically, and situating geopolitically the parties involved in the alleged assassination and the murder of my father and countless of thousands of others. So I don't see why it's surprising...

O'REILLY: All right. Now let me stop you here. So...

GLICK: ... for you to think that I would come back and want to support...

O'REILLY: It is surprising, and I'll tell you why. I'll tell you why it's surprising.

GLICK: ... escalating...

O'REILLY: You are mouthing a far left position that is a marginal position in this society, which you're entitled to.

GLICK: It's marginal -- right.

O'REILLY: You're entitled to it, all right, but you're -- you see, even -- I'm sure your beliefs are sincere, but what upsets me is I don't think your father would be approving of this.

GLICK: Well, actually, my father thought that Bush's presidency was illegitimate.

O'REILLY: Maybe he did, but...

GLICK: I also didn't think that Bush...

O'REILLY: ... I don't think he'd be equating this country as a terrorist nation as you are.

GLICK: Well, I wasn't saying that it was necessarily like that.

O'REILLY: Yes, you are. You signed...

GLICK: What I'm saying is...

O'REILLY: ... this, and that absolutely said that.

GLICK: ... is that in -- six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government.

O'REILLY: All right. I don't want to...

GLICK: Maybe...

O'REILLY: I don't want to debate world politics with you.

GLICK: Well, why not? This is about world politics.

O'REILLY: Because, No. 1, I don't really care what you think.

GLICK: Well, OK.

O'REILLY: You're -- I want to...

GLICK: But you do care because you...

O'REILLY: No, no. Look...

GLICK: The reason why you care is because you evoke 9/11...

O'REILLY: Here's why I care.

GLICK: ... to rationalize...

O'REILLY: Here's why I care...

GLICK: Let me finish. You evoke 9/11 to rationalize everything from domestic plunder to imperialistic aggression worldwide.

O'REILLY: OK. That's a bunch...

GLICK: You evoke sympathy with the 9/11 families.

O'REILLY: That's a bunch of crap. I've done more for the 9/11 families by their own admission -- I've done more for them than you will ever hope to do.

GLICK: OK.

O'REILLY: So you keep your mouth shut when you sit here exploiting those people.

GLICK: Well, you're not representing me. You're not representing me.

O'REILLY: And I'd never represent you. You know why?

GLICK: Why?

O'REILLY: Because you have a warped view of this world and a warped view of this country.

GLICK: Well, explain that. Let me give you an example of a parallel...

O'REILLY: No, I'm not going to debate this with you, all right.

GLICK: Well, let me give you an example of parallel experience. On September 14...

O'REILLY: No, no. Here's -- here's the...

GLICK: On September 14...

O'REILLY: Here's the record.

GLICK: OK.

O'REILLY: All right. You didn't support the action against Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. You were against it, OK.

GLICK: Why would I want to brutalize and further punish the people in Afghanistan...

O'REILLY: Who killed your father!

GLICK: The people in Afghanistan...

O'REILLY: Who killed your father.

GLICK: ... didn't kill my father.

O'REILLY: Sure they did. The al Qaeda people were trained there.

GLICK: The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people?

O'REILLY: See, I'm more angry about it than you are!

GLICK: So what about George Bush?

O'REILLY: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: The director -- senior as director of the CIA.

O'REILLY: He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who were...

O'REILLY: Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this.

GLICK: Well, I hope she is.

O'REILLY: I hope your mother is not watching this because you -- that's it. I'm not going to say anymore.

GLICK: OK.

O'REILLY: In respect for your father...

GLICK: On September 14, do you want to know what I'm doing?

O'REILLY: Shut up. Shut up.

GLICK: Oh, please don't tell me to shut up.

O'REILLY: As respect -- as respect -- in respect for your father, who was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed unnecessarily by barbarians...

GLICK: By radical extremists who were trained by this government...

O'REILLY: Out of respect for him...

GLICK: ... not the people of America.

O'REILLY: ... I'm not going to...

GLICK: ... The people of the ruling class, the small minority.

O'REILLY: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of respect for your father.

We will be back in a moment with more of THE FACTOR.

GLICK: That means we're done?

O'REILLY: We're done.

I respect him because he puts everyone in there place conservative and liberal. Liberals hate hime because he has the intelligence and the facts to prove them wrong.

He's a loud-mouth and doesn't let anyone talk. He cut off that guy at least 10 times. Maddox has it right, as well.

Liberals hate hime because he has the intelligence and the facts to prove them wrong. By yelling them down and cutting their mics?

He cuts the off when he has proof at what they are saying is absurd.

I watch O' Reilly every night he does not cut their mics off.

I watch O' Reilly every night he does not cut their mics off.
Yes he does. That's absurd to think otherwise.

Only when it far far far left wing material. If you like hear theis far leftist crap of no religon no free market no doin shit then thats fine with me. I really dont care for that crap.

Last night he cut off a guy's mic because the guy was talking about how marijuana is medically benificially to people like Montel Williams.

Yeah i saw that he cut him off because ne had to start aniother segment. Who wants debates to go forever?

everyone is talking about how oreilly is too conservative. if you look at polls after watching his show you will reaalize that almost all the time he states an opinion that is held by a majority of the united states. I have been a fan of his show for two years. believe me he is no hard core right winger . he is a moderate. he has some conservative stances and some liberal stances.

Such as? Give us some example of his liberal stances. And then tell us how often he talks about those liberal issues.

Just curious.

Edit: For the record, I consider O'Reilly to be an Imperial Grand Douche. Not quite as big an asshole as Hannity or Savage (or Coulter or Farah), but he certainly holds his own in the Conservative Douche Hall of Fame.

You go, girl.

Oh, if anyone's interested in seeing some Hannity and O'Reilly clips: http://www.foxnews-follies.com/

Such as? Give us some example of his liberal stances. And then tell us how often he talks about those liberal issues.
I don't know how often he states it, but he is against the death penalty.

And in his book (I think its the O'Reilly Factor) he gave off a list of things that people would consider liberal that he would support.



O'Reilly does cut mics, I've seen it. Like once when him and (Al Franken was it? Some guy from Democrats.com) were supposed to be talking about issues and of course he tries to direct it towards Florida 2000 because he can't stand his own on the issues.

I don't know how often he states it, but he is against the death penalty.

And in his book (I think its the O'Reilly Factor) he gave off a list of things that people would consider liberal that he would support.

But of course, if he barely talks about these liberal causes (and from what I've seen, this is the case), then it's pretty dishonest to point to these things as evidence that he is (or at least his public image is) not biased towards conservatism.

He deals with what issues aer big day-to-day. He takes a step away from the Republican / Conservative standpoint a lot on issues such as Iraq intellegence. When I was watching him a while ago I remember him quite often saying that Bush was wrong and that he should have known better, etc.

He deals with what issues aer big day-to-day. He takes a step away from the Republican / Conservative standpoint a lot on issues such as Iraq intellegence. When I was watching him a while ago I remember him quite often saying that Bush was wrong and that he should have known better, etc.

Yes, but how about analysing the many intermediary steps between the beginning of the war and now?

http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/oreillywmd.htm

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/entertainers/pundits/bill-oreilly/

For several months, O'Reilly was playing a little game regarding the WMD situation in Iraq. Originally, Bill was convinced that when we liberated Iraq, there would be WMDs aplenty. Back in March 2003, he went so far as to tell the Good Morning America viewers that "if the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again."

Months later, after President Bush declared the end of combat operations in Iraq and still no weapons of mass destruction had been uncovered, O'Reilly started to regret those words. So he gave the White House an ultimatum to come clean about the WMDs "in the next few weeks." But when that deadline was about to expire, Bill offered a new expiration date, granting the President an additional five months. Five weeks later, when it became obvious that the administration had no intention of meeting O'Reilly's decree, Bill extended it another six months.

In effect, Bill kept hitting the snooze button on his WMD deadline to avoid (or at least delay) apologizing to the nation and declaring his mistrust for the Bush administration, two things he probably never had any intention of doing under any circumstances. But, in the end, it became unavoidable.

5 Jun 2003: On The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly declares: "Reasonable people are faced with two conclusions -- one, that the intelligence was wrong, or, two, that more time is needed to find the weapons. Talking Points just asks one thing from President Bush: an update on the situation in the next few weeks. That's a very reasonable request, and one the President must take seriously if he wants to advance the cause of the USA throughout the world. In the end, if the intelligence was faulty, some people have to be fired. If, God forbid, the intelligence was contrived, and I don't believe that, but if it is proven, then Congressional action must be taken." Deadline: 1 Jul 2003

11 Jun 2003: On The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly declares: "It is possible the President did lie, but most of the credible evidence points to wishful thinking on WMDs, rather than outright deception. By the way, the President must tell us his feelings on the guerrilla action in Iraq and the WMDs, or risk losing popularity... We the people deserve an extensive update from the President before he goes on summer vacation. This is not a partisan issue. This is a people issue. There are things we have the right to know about, and the President must tell us." Deadline: 1 Aug 2003

31 Jul 2003: On The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly declares: "We're confused about the WMDs. And Mr. Bush has an obligation to clear this up by the end of the year." Deadline: 1 Jan 2003 [actually, 2004]

8 Oct 2003: During his appearance on the National Public Radio interview program Fresh Air, Bill O'Reilly declares: "Well, certainly the WMD situation is troubling, okay. All Americans should demand within the next nine months -- before the Presidential candidate, uh candidates, really swing in -- for an explanation of what exactly happened. Americans will accept mistakes if mistakes were made honestly, but it needs to be defined by the Bush administration why the intelligence was faulty. And, uh, you know, there is no spin on that. They have to do it." Deadline: 1 Jul 2004

10 Feb 2004: Still lacking any substantive explanations from the White House, Bill O'Reilly grudgingly apologizes on Good Morning America.

O'REILLY: Well, my analysis was wrong and I'm sorry. Absolutely, you know.
GIBSON: Camera's right there.
O'REILLY: Um, and I'm not pleased about it.
GIBSON: Camera's right there.
O'REILLY: Yeah, I just said it. What do you want me to do? Go over and kiss the camera?

I saw O'Reilly and Paul Krugman debate this evening on Tim Russert's show. I'd recommend everyone see it. A good solid debate, regardless of who you prefer.

P.S. (Had to get it in: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44149-2004Aug5_2.html)

During their give and take -- okay, maybe it's more accurate to say push and shove, or slap and smack -- O'Reilly would periodically accuse Krugman of not letting him get in a sentence, or words to that effect.

So we counted and, according to The Washington Post TV Team Transcript Tally, O'Reilly actually got in 321 sentences during the "debate," to Krugman's 258.

:)

Anyone who's seen O'Reilly's show should take a look at this: http://philosoraptor.blogspot.com/

And then scroll down for the recap of the O'Reilly-Krugman debate.

I think bill o'reilly is a well meaning man who gives his opinion to anyone who wishes to hear it 5 hours a week on tv and 10 hours a week on the radio. If you like him you can keep listening. if he is bad you can stop listening. Many people like him as he is the most popular prime time cable news show.He has had several best selling books. Personaly, i find his show and opinions entertaining as well as very interesting.

he isn't news

no news on o'reilly eh? than i guess he makes up random stories and tells them and then invites actors on to make believe the story actualy effected them. Welcome to the land of oz. unsubstantiated claims are not my game and o'reilly is great.

no news on o'reilly eh? than i guess he makes up random stories and tells them and then invites actors on to make believe the story actualy effected them. Welcome to the land of oz. unsubstantiated claims are not my game and o'reilly is great.
ok john stewart is also a news anchor then

Who?