NationStates Jolt Archive

As I was in the waiting room in the dentist for my monthly appointment, Fox happened to be on. Naturally I watched as the only other thing to do was read Glamour mags.

Anyway, O'Reily was on. He apparently was "discussing" with two Canadians about US-Canadian relations. He kept telling the Canadians that why is the Canadian media so Anti-American?

So I wondered, "Anti American? No...the Canadians in NS would've been even crazier then they are now....must be forgein policy."

And I watched some more. And Reily then went on to asking why did the Canadians care about what the Americans did? Why didn't they butt out of our business?


If the guy next to me wasn't laughing, I would've changed the channel. I mean C'MON! I'm bloody 14 and my ego isn't as bad as his!

Then my name was called and I got my white bands replaced with silver ones. Now they won't stain when I eat Subway. :)

Something they must learn, Bush does not equal America. If Kerry had been elected, that supposed anti-American bias would disappear. Oreilly purposefully blurs the lines.

As well, we sure cared what the Soviet Union did during its heyday. Part of being a world superpower is that everyone cares what you do.

Remember, Chodolo, Bill O'Reilly is not a reporter, journalist, or newsperson of any sort. He is a talking head. He doesn't get paid to make reasonable arguments and report viable news, he gets paid to argue, spout reactionary oneliners, and for his knack for yellow journalism. So he is just doing his job, my question is: What were these Canadians thinking? They should have known what they were in for.

Something they must learn, Bush does not equal America. If Kerry had been elected, that supposed anti-American bias would disappear. Oreilly purposefully blurs the lines.

As well, we sure cared what the Soviet Union did during its heyday. Part of being a world superpower is that everyone cares what you do.

There are a great deal of people who need to realize that Bush does not equal America. It is hard for them, though, with the White House and the media telling them so.

Man, I wish you guys would make up your minds whether you want to be informed or entertained. It'd make things so much easier.

Man, I wish you guys would make up your minds whether you want to be informed or entertained. It'd make things so much easier.

Entertained. Even those of us who do want to be informed do because it is entertaining do a certain degree.

SHUT UP!!! SHUT UP, YOU LIBERAL ELITEST SCUMBAGS!!! HOW DARE YOU DEFAME HIS MOST RIGHTOUS BEARER OF THE TRUTH, MASTER O'REILY?!?! WHY DON"T YOU JUST MOVE TO CANADA IF YOU HATE HIM AND THIS COUNTYRY SO MUCH?!?! SO SHUT UP OR I'LL TURN OFF YOUR MICROPHONES!!!


At least, that's what I'd say if I was an O'reily fan. Since I'm not, Ill say that O'reily is truly a blathering nutcase, but he can be funny to listen to sometimes if your altered. Anne Coulter is right up there with him. If there is a God she will never breed! :sniper:

Oreilly at least sounds intelligent. I fairly respect the gay, I'd say. I get the feeling I could have an honest debate with him without feeling like I'm arguing with a wall.

That would be Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, and probably Rush Limbaugh, etc.

Oreilly at least sounds intelligent. I fairly respect the gay, I'd say. I get the feeling I could have an honest debate with him without feeling like I'm arguing with a wall.

That would be Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, and probably Rush Limbaugh, etc.

You say he sounds intelligent. But is he, or does he just have a smooth professional voice and an even complexion? See, I don't know, we don't have it here yet. Though I'm starting to dread it's debut.

Remember, Chodolo, Bill O'Reilly is not a reporter, journalist, or newsperson of any sort. He is a talking head. He doesn't get paid to make reasonable arguments and report viable news, he gets paid to argue, spout reactionary oneliners, and for his knack for yellow journalism.

It's easy to say that about someone you disagree with. It makes me wonder what people say about you behind your back.

Remember, Chodolo, Bill O'Reilly is not a reporter, journalist, or newsperson of any sort. He is a talking head. He doesn't get paid to make reasonable arguments and report viable news, he gets paid to argue, spout reactionary oneliners, and for his knack for yellow journalism. So he is just doing his job, my question is: What were these Canadians thinking? They should have known what they were in for.
Almost everyone regularly featured on the news qualifies as a talking head. The exeptions would be the regular feild reporters.

You say he sounds intelligent. But is he, or does he just have a smooth professional voice and an even complexion? See, I don't know, we don't have it here yet. Though I'm starting to dread it's debut.


You can always change the channel or simply not watch at all if you want to avoid what is generally an hour of neo-con propoganda - unless you're into that thing. And he does make a few good points every now and then. I'm just not a big fan of the whole SHUT-UP thing he does. It just gets ugly. Plus a lot of his guests are MUCH worse than him. O'reily might not be all that bad, but the people that come on his show just - ugh! Can't handle the hate that spills out of their mouths sometimes.

It's easy to say that about someone you disagree with. It makes me wonder what people say about you behind your back.

I made no personal insult to Bill O'Reilly, he may be a very smart well-informed man in person, I don't know. I do know that I agree with him on several issues. I also know that he is not a journalist and that he specializes in making inflammatory marks and not allowing people to explain a position that might not be common sense.

Now would you like to agree or disagree with me, or are you going to stick to rhetorical questions?

Almost everyone regularly featured on the news qualifies as a talking head. The exeptions would be the regular feild reporters.

I completely agree with you. There doesn't seem to be a journalist out there that will just give you facts without opinions. Apparently people are no longer satisfied with forming their own opinions, they have to get them from television, too.

SHUT UP!!! SHUT UP, YOU LIBERAL ELITEST SCUMBAGS!!! HOW DARE YOU DEFAME HIS MOST RIGHTOUS BEARER OF THE TRUTH, MASTER O'REILY?!?! WHY DON"T YOU JUST MOVE TO CANADA IF YOU HATE HIM AND THIS COUNTYRY SO MUCH?!?! SO SHUT UP OR I'LL TURN OFF YOUR MICROPHONES!!!


At least, that's what I'd say if I was an O'reily fan. Since I'm not, Ill say that O'reily is truly a blathering nutcase, but he can be funny to listen to sometimes if your altered. Anne Coulter is right up there with him. If there is a God she will never breed! :sniper:

That's a nice, objective, journalistic-style reasonable thought-out argument like the ones you probably critisise O'Reilly and Coulter for. Do you 'shoot' people on this forum for disagreeing with you, or just people who aren't on here to defend themselves?

Edit: Added the word "probably" where I meant to type it

I made no personal insult to Bill O'Reilly, he may be a very smart well-informed man in person, I don't know. I do know that I agree with him on several issues. I also know that he is not a journalist and that he specializes in making inflammatory marks and not allowing people to explain a position that might not be common sense.

Now would you like to agree or disagree with me, or are you going to stick to rhetorical questions?

I'll stick to the rhetorical questions, thanks. I have an opinion on O'Reilly but I'd rather talk about what others say about him.

I'll stick to the rhetorical questions, thanks. I have an opinion on O'Reilly but I'd rather talk about what others say about him.

Well then how do you feel about my comments toward him?

I'll stick to the rhetorical questions, thanks. I have an opinion on O'Reilly but I'd rather talk about what others say about him.

Well, speaking as someone who hasn't actually seen this dude, I'd be much obliged if you'd be forthcoming with your take on him. Get more than one side, so to speak.

That's a nice, objective, journalistic-style reasonable thought-out argument like the ones you critisise O'Reilly and Coulter for. Do you 'shoot' people on this forum for disagreeing with you, or just people who aren't on here to defend themselves?


Guess what! I'm not an objective journalist. I don't have to be reasonable. And Bill O'reily and/or Ann Coulter can create their own nation and come post to this forum anytime they want and I'll happily argue with them here. Since they haven't, I'm still gonna say whatever the hell I want to until I get banned/deleted off this forum. And I've never actually 'shot' anyone, although I can think of a few I wouldn't mind 'shooting' if I could get away with it. I take it you haven't been around here very long. Me either, but I think I've picked up the general gist of how I can and can't conduct myself. If it offends you, deal with it!

ps - my bad. I just noticed your join date is listed as Aug 2004. You've been here quite a bit longer than I. Go by any other forum names? You remind me of someone else. (just a rhetorical question - don't really care)

I'll stick to the rhetorical questions, thanks. I have an opinion on O'Reilly but I'd rather talk about what others say about him.


Ah! I see I have another user I'll have to start ignoring now. Nice of you to make yourself known early on. Thanks! Bye now.

Oh, yeah

:sniper:

Have any of you seen "Outfoxed" (I think that's what it's called), the documentary about the spin of Fox News? I really want to see it but haven't yet--can't seem to find a VHS copy around here.

Oreilly at least sounds intelligent. I fairly respect the gay, I'd say. I get the feeling I could have an honest debate with him without feeling like I'm arguing with a wall.

That would be Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, and probably Rush Limbaugh, etc.

Whoa dude, O'reilly IS a wall. Admitedly i haven't watched too many O'reilly segments but of the 5 or 6 i have seen he is the epotmy of...WALL. Look at the guy he never considers anything someone else says all he's thinking about is "proving" (talking loudly and repeating) his argument. Yes...he does quiet down so other the opinion can be said, but look at him he's just thinking of a counter arguement. Yeah a lot of people do that, and a lot of people are walls. Only Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, and Rush Limbaugh could have an honest debate with him without yelling and the skillful use of the commercial break.

I think I've picked up the general gist of how I can and can't conduct myself. If it offends you, deal with it!

Take that last sentence, everyone, and use it before you talk about Bill O'Reilly. Gottit?

Okay, by popular demand I'll say what I think of O'Reilly. He asks the questions that others are too scared to ask, which is what I always strive to do, and in that way I see him as one of my 'brothers'. The word "neo-conservative" is not really an accurate label for either of us - we're sort of "Conservative-compatible far-liberals" (meaning, conservative for more original reasons, holding some VERY liberal ideas that even the liberals don't touch) and I tell you, it's rare to see that.

The guy's interviewing style could use some work. He sometimes gets carried away with picking on his guests, and at other times he doesn't go for the jugular when you want him to! But overall I like to watch his shows for a new perspective; and some of his critics admit that he's very entertaining in his style, which I agree with.

Ah! I see I have another user I'll have to start ignoring now. Nice of you to make yourself known early on. Thanks! Bye now.

Oh, yeah

:sniper:

I guess, for some people, violence IS the only solution...

Ah! I see I have another user I'll have to start ignoring now. Nice of you to make yourself known early on. Thanks! Bye now.

Oh, yeah

:sniper:

Did I mention I'm the leader of the Australian Greens? Therefore, you should probably also ignore everything the Greens say. Don't forget to put me last on the ballot paper! :)

My roommate had to listen to liberal and conservative talk radio each for an hour as part of his government class.

First up was Mike somebody on Air America, who between the ads for natural viagra, berrated a priest who claimed that he cured a gay man of HIV and added that he felt said priest "represented everything evil about mankind." Good lord it was awful, although the part where he called a senator from Alabama the most ignorant person on earth for wanting to ban every book with some sexual material from public libraries.

Next was Rush Limbaugh, who is a nutcase. Period. And he's still scared of the Clintons.

Finally, though, was Michael Savage, who made me spray water out my nose when he denounced Bush's "violent sprint to the left" and threatened to flood the innaguration events with his supporters wearing a cap bearing his dopy message. He was flat out hilarious.

My conclusion? Talk radio personalites are bad for everyone. They're like political pornography, satisfying for a while but also addicting and not fulfilling in the least.

My roommate had to listen to liberal and conservative talk radio each for an hour as part of his government class.

That's strange. Usually, at fine educational institutions, you get marked down if you listen to anything conservative ;)

Whoa dude, O'reilly IS a wall. Admitedly i haven't watched too many O'reilly segments but of the 5 or 6 i have seen he is the epotmy of...WALL. Look at the guy he never considers anything someone else says all he's thinking about is "proving" (talking loudly and repeating) his argument. Yes...he does quiet down so other the opinion can be said, but look at him he's just thinking of a counter arguement. Yeah a lot of people do that, and a lot of people are walls. Only Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, and Rush Limbaugh could have an honest debate with him without yelling and the skillful use of the commercial break.

Having watched quite a bit more than 5 or 6 O'Reilly episodes, I'm inclined to disagree with you. On many, many occasions, I've seen O'Reilly acknowledge a strong counterpoint -- IF someone was able to make a good counter-argument using actual facts. O'Reilly's "shtick" is to make the guests stick to facts (hence his motto "The No-Spin Zone"); of course, most politicians (et al) simply can't make a reasonable argument with facts -- the party-line BS always finds a way in.

Of course, much of the public can't distinguish between "facts" and "spin" (which is why the politicians continue using it), so some people might see O'Reilly as a "wall" when he refuses to listen and keeps firing away at someone who's doing nothing but spinning.

Additionally, I've seen him blast Republicans who spin, just as much as he blasts Dems. When he encounters someone who CAN make a good argument without spin (from either side), he's generally pretty fair-minded.

I disagree with O'Reilly roughly half the time, but I do respect and understand what he's trying to accomplish. Also, for some of the folks on this thread who don't seem to understand this: O'Reilly is a COMMENTATOR, not a reporter. And a commentator is supposed to have a point-of-view.

Having watched quite a bit more than 5 or 6 O'Reilly episodes, I'm inclined to disagree with you. On many, many occasions, I've seen O'Reilly acknowledge a strong counterpoint -- IF someone was able to make a good counter-argument using actual facts. O'Reilly's "shtick" is to make the guests stick to facts (hence his motto "The No-Spin Zone"); of course, most politicians (et al) simply can't make a reasonable argument with facts -- the party-line BS always finds a way in.

Of course, much of the public can't distinguish between "facts" and "spin" (which is why the politicians continue using it), so some people might see O'Reilly as a "wall" when he refuses to listen and keeps firing away at someone who's doing nothing but spinning.

Additionally, I've seen him blast Republicans who spin, just as much as he blasts Dems. When he encounters someone who CAN make a good argument without spin (from either side), he's generally pretty fair-minded.

I disagree with O'Reilly roughly half the time, but I do respect and understand what he's trying to accomplish. Also, for some of the folks on this thread who don't seem to understand this: O'Reilly is a COMMENTATOR, not a reporter. And a commentator is supposed to have a point-of-view.

That is basically my impression of Oreilly. I disagree with him mostly all the time, but he brings up valid points, and argues them without resorting to the same partisan lines Coulter and Limbaugh are fond of. And yes, he's even criticized other conservatives for being morons. I remember one where he was interviewing Laura Ingraham, and she stated that Iraq was going "marvelously", and Oreilly had a go at her.

Does anyone else find it weird that O'Reilly just got away with that whole acting like a pervert thing?

I mean really, you would at least expect a few people to be turned off by it.

Bill O'Riley is a personality, not a journalist. That is correct. He is not, technically, a neo-con. Neoconservatism is, essentially, the idea that the original Keynesian economic model (cutting taxes while raising spending to generate a deficit one can use to build a 'national credit rating' during times of recession and raising taxes and cutting spending during times of prosperity) should be applied to defense spending instead of social programs. Neoconservatism is based in what used to be called 'West Coast Conservativism' and was largely founded as an ideaology by Ronald Reagan and his supporters. Many early West Coast Conservatives (including Reagan) were New Deal Democrats who remained moderate on social issues (Reagan vetoed the Briggs Amendment, a rider on an education budget that would have made it illegal for homosexuals to teach school in California, as governor of California) while becoming increasingly pro-business, pro-free trade, and hawkish on foreign policy. Many neoconservatives of the Reagan Revolution(Phil Gramm comes to mind) were Great Society Democrats who became disillusioned with the failure of welfare programs to miraclulously end poverty.

Neoconservativism clings to the edges of fascism, not the overblown comparisons to the Nazis that are thrown at the modern Republican party but the 'corporate state' envisioned by fascist Italy. Democratic forms, direct corporate participation in government, aggresively pro-law and order policies, jingoistic patriotism, tough foreign policy (with military intervention an acceptable diplomatic tactic), and a 'return to traditional morality'. All of these things serve as a means of increasing the power of the government as a tool to control the middle and working classes. Neo-conservatives agree with traditional conservatives on many issues, but they are in favor of a big government as much as any liberal.

Traditional conservatives favor individual rights over group rights, local control over federal control for most social programs and decisions, a sense of moral tradition in government and a desire for moral leadership from government officials, small government whenever possible, and very careful federal spending. The best example of traditional conservatives in American politics since WWII are Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater, and (Goldwater's political heir) John McCain. Like neoconservatives they tend to be unilateralists, but prefer a deliberate consideration of consequences to strict hawkishness in foreign policy. They can also surprise you when you least expect it. In the 1980s, Barry Goldwater shocked both parties in congress by proposing a legalization and taxation program for most illegal drugs. His argument was that the legalization and taxation of drugs would end the nation's largest law enforcement problem, save a fortune in spending, and provide a new source of revenue that would allow an income tax cut all in one stroke. John McCain, to the dismay and disdain of neoconservatives, co-authored the Patients' Bill of Rights (an aggressive attack on HMOs) with Teddy Kennedy.

O'Riley is neither. He has some similarities to both, however. Some traditional conservatives, for fiscal and religious reasons (Ronald Reagan and recent Illinois governor George Ryan), have reservations about capital punishment, which O'Riley opposes. Like neoconservatives, he is a foreign policy hawk and a free trader. Like traditional conservatives, he advocates local control and a small government.

Mostly, however, O'Riley is a social reactionary. He sees change as a frightening thing and sees moral positions opposed to his as dangerous and evil. A prisoner of the way things were when he was a child, he sees the modern America a frightening and dangerous place and wants to turn back the clock. This is the category into which most of the Religious Right falls and it is not a true political ideaology. It is an emotional impulse that is understandable, but ultimately harmful. It is also ultimately inevitable. The reactionary is not motivated by political opinion or the desire to solve problems but by fear of perceived threats to their way of life or peace of mind. Reactionaries started the Civil War, ruined the economy of the post-war South with political and economic terrorism, battled progressive reform in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, attempted to (bloodily, often) quash the union movement, pandered to Nazi Germany prior to Pearl Harbor, led the ruthless inquisition of the 50s 'Red Scare', killed civil rights acitivists in the 60s and peace protestors in the 70s, and fueled the so-called conservative revival of the 80s and 90s.

Bill O'Riley, like many of us in this modern day and age, is afraid. Rather than face his fears and conquer them, he wishes to make the rest of society conform to his fears so he can feel safe. This is, in many ways, human nature. It's also what's wrong with the 'conservatism' of the 21st century. There have always been reactionaries in American politics, but they have never had the mass and power they do today. And the American people have never listened to them so closely before.

Fear is a powerful thing, folks. So is religious belief. Social reactionism plays to both.

Does anyone else find it weird that O'Reilly just got away with that whole acting like a pervert thing?

I mean really, you would at least expect a few people to be turned off by it.
Well, he was acting like a pervert, yes, but he didn't actually do anything physical and it was in no way harrassment as the plaintiff wanted to claim.

Well, he was acting like a pervert, yes, but he didn't actually do anything physical and it was in no way harrassment as the plaintiff wanted to claim.


True, but it's kinda hard to take him seriously now.

Oreilly at least sounds intelligent. I fairly respect the gay,

Not sure he'd appreciate that description... ;)

Never seen O'Reilly but I have seen the Daily Show. Whilst I enjoy some of the stuff John Stewart's interviewing style is a little too, um, zealous for my tastes. I mean, let the interviewee finish their sentence at least. So, question to all, how does he compare to O'Reilly?

Something they must learn, Bush does not equal America. If Kerry had been elected, that supposed anti-American bias would disappear. Oreilly purposefully blurs the lines.

As well, we sure cared what the Soviet Union did during its heyday. Part of being a world superpower is that everyone cares what you do.


That is not entirely true Cholodo. Had the administration changed we would have had no further beef with the current administration, but the new one would just have had our probationary approval pending their policy decisions.

Canadians have no partisan affiliation to either US party, we simply evaluate US decisions based on our own criteria - which of course does not have the US-centric self-interest but rather our own, and has other fundamental differences as well.

We have had issues with each and every American Administration, as you have had with ours. Both countries operate with some self-interest in mind, and so we are almost guaranteed to clash from time to time. Some administrations we have seem more eye-to-eye with. Some less. Our dificulty with this one, besides the fundamental differences in foreign policy, is the fact that there is the impression that they are almost impossible to work with. That they seem to be inflexible and arrogant.

It is dificult to engage in the give and take of politics if the other side is viewed as inflexible.


Kerry would have started with a clean slate, so the current animosity towards US policy would have dissipated, but there are no guarantees that we would have wound up with any higher opinion of him than we have of Bush.