NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't know if this was intentional or not--I hope it was--but even if it wasn't, it's still funny as hell.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-images/upload/nospine.JPG

I don't know if this was intentional or not--I hope it was--but even if it wasn't, it's still funny as hell.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-images/upload/nospine.JPG
Typical leftist tactic. Nothing smart to say? Just make jokes so no one notices.

Can someone please explain this to an ignorant European?

Can someone please explain this to an ignorant European?
Bill Oreilly hosts a show called "The No Spin Zone"
Notice in the picture it says "No Spine Zone"
How utterly hilarious! [/sarcasm]

Typical leftist tactic. Nothing smart to say? Just make jokes so no one notices.

As opposed to Reiley, whose brave tactic of spouting "You're an idiot! You're an idiot! I'm right, you're wrong!" and yelling over his guests, eventually cutting them off the air when they are winning a debate, is perfectly acceptable.

Can someone please explain this to an ignorant European?

Yes, people who work for TV in the US are stupid. Captions and graphics are error riddled; it happens all the time. Sometimes they are coincidently funny. Sometimes not.

In any case, even if by some miracle this was intentional, they are always unprofessional.

As opposed to Reiley, whose brave tactic of spouting "You're an idiot! You're an idiot! I'm right, you're wrong!" and yelling over his guests, eventually cutting them off the air when they are winning a debate, is perfectly acceptable.

...I think I've heard him do that. I certainly remember a documentary about the Culture War in the US in which a radio commentator did that... I do remember thinking at the time, "At least one of the most vicious political journalist/commentators we have is famous for asking the same (important) question fourteen times to a politician unwilling to answer it."

Also, thanks for explaining the "No Spin Zone" thing. Having seen the odd bit of US TV News, I've seen some really shite typos, but that's... wow, that's unprofessional (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4343006.stm).

...I think I've heard him do that. I certainly remember a documentary about the Culture War in the US in which a radio commentator did that... I do remember thinking at the time, "At least one of the most vicious political journalist/commentators we have is famous for asking the same (important) question fourteen times to a politician unwilling to answer it."


Yeah, I saw a clip of it on a documentary where he was yelling at a person whose dad had died in 9/11 for not supporting the war in Iraq, telling him how much his father must be ashamed of him without responding to his arguments. Just looked like an absolute twat who the world would be better off without.

Paxman rules - if he got an interview with Bush he'd absolutely tear him apart. He doesn't care about your politics, he'll just rip into you regardless. The only person i've seen stand up to him pretty well was Charles Kennedy.

As opposed to Reiley, whose brave tactic of spouting "You're an idiot! You're an idiot! I'm right, you're wrong!" and yelling over his guests, eventually cutting them off the air when they are winning a debate, is perfectly acceptable.
Sure, he's brash sometimes, and sometimes even rude. But he never throws softballs, he never lets people dodge questions, and he ridicules BOTH sides often. Whats wrong with that? Should he sit there smiling like an idiot, and be a polite, pathetic (read : MSNBC) spineless weasel? He's kinda the "Patton" of Cable news.

Sure, he's brash sometimes, and sometimes even rude. But he never throws softballs, he never lets people dodge questions, and he ridicules BOTH sides often. Whats wrong with that? Should he sit there smiling like an idiot, and be a polite, pathetic (read : MSNBC) spineless weasel? He's kinda the "Patton" of Cable news.

Being brash and rude is different from plain being a bad interviewer. From what i've seen O'Reiley seems like a child, unwilling to listen to any argument he can't respond to by putting his fingers in his ears and going "Ner ner ner ner ner, I can't hear you, i'm right you're wrong haa haa", then twisting whatever they do say.

For example, in the clip I saw, just because the guy said that America trained the terroists responsible for 9/11 at an earlier date, he cut him off the air and next day did a report without him there to respond on how he had apparently accused Bush of personally arranging 9/11. That's not good interviewing, that's just being a devious lying bastard.

That's... damning. That's damning.

EDIT: Sick Nightmares posted a link (http://www.lyingliar.com/videos/glick.htm) he thought would vindicate O'Reilly in telling someone to shut up. It does nothing of the kind; probably why that post's gone.

First he attaches the label. To the Rightists watching, that's all that needs doing; everything Glick says thereafter is suspect, because he's "Far Left". He's nothing of the kind. That label is utterly meaningless. Here, "Left" is taken to mean "Anti-American", which... I sincerely hope I don't have to explain to anyone here just how wrong that is.

The next thing he does is the crass emotionalism: invoke the dude's dad. Foreign policy had better not be based on one's father's wishes, and it had better not be as vengeance-based as he seems to imply!

He goes on to tell the guy "I don't care what you think" - then you shouldn't be interviewing him.

Glick then returns to actual issues, while O'Reilly turns to emotionalism, blatant attacks on Glick ("You have a warped view of this world"). Finally, emotionalism for the purposes of the soundbytes, and claiming he had "respect" for the guy's father, when he obviously disagrees with everything the man believed. Not everyone who died in the Twin Towers were what people like O'Reilly would describe as proud and upstanding Americans. A good number of them weren't even American.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

O'Reilly claims the director of the CIA had nothing to do with the US's training of the Mujahedin. He implies the training of the Mujahedin had nothing to do with why, come 2001, Al-Qaeda knew exactly what it was doing.

When being faced with facts, he invariably, and you can see this yourself, invariably invokes crass, irrelevant emotionalism - "I hope your mother isn't watching", "I'm not gonna dress you down any further out of respect for your father" to try to shut his interviewee up. Then he tells him to shut up.

He claims the military invasion of a country is suitable punishment for the tiny minority of its citizens (and/or mere inhabitants, since bin Laden at least is not Afghan) who committed a massacre. Then he implies the Afghan people are "barbarians".

Someone find out what proper aggressive journalism is, please? I have to go to lectures now, but someone, please, find Paxman vs. Howard on the Interweb somewhere?

If you're watching Katie Couric or Bill O'Reilly - you need to have your head examined - especially if you're watching them in anticipation of gleaning some small number of facts from their vacuous shows.

If we were to add a few prancing Page Three girls, either show would pass as the equivalent of the Mirror or Sun.

He's kinda the "Patton" of Cable news.
Yeah, except Patton wasn't a dumbshit.

I feel that if you were to section either Katie Couric's skull or O'Reilly's skull with a bandsaw, you would find that they are solid concrete all the way through - no brains to speak of.

Looks like Katie also employs idiots on her team - that Michelle woman who was rowing a canoe in 3 inches of water and getting caught doing it (obviously trying to sensationalize rudimentary flooding) is a complete asshat.

Bill Oreilly hosts a show called "The No Spin Zone"
Notice in the picture it says "No Spine Zone"
How utterly hilarious! [/sarcasm]

Oh...grow a sense of humor.

It made me smirk...

While I'm of the opinion that O'Reilly is a pompous asshole who should be stripped of his television and radio programs and then violated with a pointy stick I must admit that was a low blow on the part of the Today Show. (If it was intentional.)

While I'm of the opinion that O'Reilly is a pompous asshole who should be stripped of his television and radio programs and then violated with a pointy stick I must admit that was a low blow on the part of the Today Show. (If it was intentional.)

It's ok - it was done by the same show that gave us a canoe in three inches of water in order to exaggerate a "flood".

Sure, he's brash sometimes, and sometimes even rude. But he never throws softballs, he never lets people dodge questions, and he ridicules BOTH sides often. Whats wrong with that? Should he sit there smiling like an idiot, and be a polite, pathetic (read : MSNBC) spineless weasel? He's kinda the "Patton" of Cable news.

As far as I'm concerned, voicing support for O'Reilly is a discussion ender. If you can't see the encompassing wrongness and utter punditry of that guy then there's really no point in trying to reason with you. I'd have better luck convincing a neo-nazi that jewish people aren't so bad.

I think you honestly need to ask yourself why you would connect with a man who is devoid of any moral or ethical propriety, and who operates without a hint of positivity. It speaks volumes towards who you are as a person.

As far as I'm concerned, voicing support for O'Reilly is a discussion ender. If you can't see the encompassing wrongness and utter punditry of that guy then there's really no point in trying to reason with you. I'd have better luck convincing a neo-nazi that jewish people aren't so bad.

I think you honestly need to ask yourself why you would connect with a man who is devoid of any moral or ethical propriety, and who operates without a hint of positivity. It speaks volumes towards who you are as a person.

While I do not voice support for O'Reilly, I can't voice any support for Couric, either.

Wasn't Dan Rather really a pundit? Didn't we just prove that by having him forcibly retired?

It's ok - it was done by the same show that gave us a canoe in three inches of water in order to exaggerate a "flood".
I am still waiting for the pictures of her standing thigh high in water.

And if you actually watched it, the point of the canoe was to outline the effects of the current.

I am still waiting for the pictures of her standing thigh high in water.

You know and I know we would be happier if she was in a wet T-shirt.

I am still waiting for the pictures of her standing thigh high in water.

And if you actually watched it, the point of the canoe was to outline the effects of the current.

A current which obviously had no effect on the two men who casually walked between Michelle and the camera.

Pfft! There went her story about dire flooding.

ya I saw that on The Dailey Show. anything for a story eh?

While I do not voice support for O'Reilly, I can't voice any support for Couric, either.

Wasn't Dan Rather really a pundit? Didn't we just prove that by having him forcibly retired?

Yeah I'm not a big fan of news channels in general. It's just that O'Reilly gets so vicious and mean spirited, and seems to embody and even rellish in the most negative of human emotions. I get uneasy when people support him, or when someone argues that he's not such a bad guy. It weirds me out.

Yeah I'm not a big fan of news channels in general. It's just that O'Reilly gets so vicious and mean spirited, and seems to embody and even rellish in the most negative of human emotions. I get uneasy when people support him, or when someone argues that he's not such a bad guy. It weirds me out.

Only a few are outright nasty (O'Reilly, Coulter), some just cynical (Limbaugh), and others just seethe beneath the surface, but you know what they're thinking (everyone else).

I was listening to NPR this morning, and I heard them fundraising, and saying that we should pay money to them because they are "objective" reporters.

Yes. Well. Isn't that nice. And as unbelievable as any other news source today saying that. There's nothing like hearing Nina Totenberg cover the Supreme Court cases, and from her tone of voice and pointed slant on the story, immediately identify which way she thought the ruling should go or should have gone.

Sorry - I'd rather hear my news without the interpretation - or the obsequious tone of voice.

Heh, now if only he'd go on the Daily Show to get dissed :D

Yes. Well. Isn't that nice. And as unbelievable as any other news source today saying that. There's nothing like hearing Nina Totenberg cover the Supreme Court cases, and from her tone of voice and pointed slant on the story, immediately identify which way she thought the ruling should go or should have gone.

Sorry - I'd rather hear my news without the interpretation - or the obsequious tone of voice.
If a person has no opinion on the matters of a court case, they are either uninformed or a robot.

If a person has no opinion on the matters of a court case, they are either uninformed or a robot.

I think that reporters should be required to use Stephen Hawking's voice synthesizer to read the news.

Heh, now if only he'd go on the Daily Show to get dissed :D

You know he is going to appear on the Daily Show, right?

You know he is going to appear on the Daily Show, right?


Errr, he was on two nights ago...

I think that reporters should be required to use Stephen Hawking's voice synthesizer to read the news.
"Boom shaka laka, boom shaka laka, boom."

Errr, he was on two nights ago...

Bah! Don't shoot me because I'm behind on current events. (Mainly television related.)

Heh, now if only he'd go on the Daily Show to get dissed :D
He did. You cans ee the video here. (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/10/18.html#a5443):D

"Boom shaka laka, boom shaka laka, boom."
Family Guy reference--quality, nice. :D

Why do pundints go on TDS? they just get riped apart. Even when Jon is not on his show he rips pundints apart.

He did. You cans ee the video here. (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/10/18.html#a5443):D

Ouch! Well, thats what you get when you run around acting like a complete self-righteous jackass.

As far as I'm concerned, voicing support for O'Reilly is a discussion ender. If you can't see the encompassing wrongness and utter punditry of that guy then there's really no point in trying to reason with you. I'd have better luck convincing a neo-nazi that jewish people aren't so bad.
So O'Reilly fans are worse than neo-nazis when it comes to thickheadedness and stupidity. Right-o. :rolleyes:

I think you honestly need to ask yourself why you would connect with a man who is devoid of any moral or ethical propriety, and who operates without a hint of positivity. It speaks volumes towards who you are as a person.
Ouch. Attacks under the table with that last statement. For one, you have no backup to that claim of O'Reilly, so to make a statement that implies a poor lack of character based on a previous (unproven) assumption speaks volumes towards who you are as a person.

Now, I don't care much about O'Reilly either way. He has come good points at times, and sometimes he can be a complete asshole. However, after watching his show for several years, I can say that he doesn't have a Republican agenda. Not in the least. He bashes both sides. I'm sure he'd be quick to say "I'm not discriminatory; I hate all of you equally." to clarify things. However, to base a claim that he lacks morals or ethics... that's a tad over the line there. To even take a step further and attack his fans moreso is completely over the bounds of scrimage.

As far as I'm concerned, voicing support for O'Reilly is a discussion ender. If you can't see the encompassing wrongness and utter punditry of that guy then there's really no point in trying to reason with you. I'd have better luck convincing a neo-nazi that jewish people aren't so bad.

I think you honestly need to ask yourself why you would connect with a man who is devoid of any moral or ethical propriety, and who operates without a hint of positivity. It speaks volumes towards who you are as a person.
I think somebody needs a hug. It really bothers you that I like Oreilly? Well, sorry, cause I do. At least he admits he's a pundit. And Ive seen him on NUMEROUS occasions speak ill of GWB's policies, as well as the ACLU. IN FACT, Ive seen him diss them both in the same sentence. And as for him being mean, thats kinda why I like him. reminds me of myself.:D

...I think I've heard him do that. I certainly remember a documentary about the Culture War in the US in which a radio commentator did that... I do remember thinking at the time, "At least one of the most vicious political journalist/commentators we have is famous for asking the same (important) question fourteen times to a politician unwilling to answer it."

Also, thanks for explaining the "No Spin Zone" thing. Having seen the odd bit of US TV News, I've seen some really shite typos, but that's... wow, that's unprofessional (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4343006.stm).


Cutting off people who are making points that he doesn't want to hear or will prove him wrong isn't the worst that O'Reilly does. At least when he does that an astute listner who accidentally dropped the remote while channel surffing (there really isn't any other reason for an astute anything to watch Bill O'Reilly, except masochism or media research) would notice that "hey! O'Reilly's kind of an ignorant blowhard," but he also edits the footage of interviews to make his guests look rediculous when he disagrees with them, or simply to make himself look smarter.

My favorite wasn't even a political debate. He had Triumph the Insult Comic Dog on the show and edited out all his jokes, but he left in the setups.

(Italics denote removed speech.)
Triumph: You call yourselves 'Fair and Balanced...'
O'Reilly: 'Fair and Balanced,' that's right...
Triumph "Yeah right, you're about as well balanced as Ted Kennedy at 2:00 AM"

Triumph: Bill, I just have to say you are an excellent journalist with lots of integrity.
O'Reilly: Thank You.
Triumph: Oh, wait, aren't we in the "No Spin Zone?" Well then, YOU SUCK!!!

All I have to say is, he doesn't trust politicians, he absolutely HATES childs molesters,(supports MANDATORY 25 year sentence ) he boycotts France, he doesn't take peoples shit ( the reason they call it "the no spin zone" is because when someone starts repeating talking points, he tells them to shut the hell up) he calls a spade a spade, and he isn't afraid to speak his mind.

Why do you think he has the Number one slot in his time slots? The only people who don't like him are the ones who either 1) Keep repeating "free market" when discussing the oil industry gouging us, or 2) keep repeating "Bush is evil, no WMD's" when discussing the Iraq war.

However, after watching his show for several years, I can say that he doesn't have a Republican agenda. Not in the least. He bashes both sides. I'm sure he'd be quick to say "I'm not discriminatory; I hate all of you equally." to clarify things. However, to base a claim that he lacks morals or ethics... that's a tad over the line there. To even take a step further and attack his fans moreso is completely over the bounds of scrimage.

You'd have to have watched the show for several years before you could have lost touch with reality so much that you think that he's actually an independent and isn't partisan. He thinks that he waged a war to save Christmas. He thinks there's such a thing as a far left wing in American politics. He staged an interview with Bush that was so blatantly scripted that I think I heard a pipe organ playing in the background. He might make the occaisional token "he's not totally perfect" statement about a Republican once in a while, but there's no such thing as a FOX host that doesn't have a conservative agenda.

If you think that Colmes is a liberal, he isn't. He's a self described moderate. And he isn't really even a host. He's a whipping boy. Why do you think that he wasn't on the episode with Tom Delay?

All I have to say is, he doesn't trust politicians, he absolutely HATES childs molesters,(supports MANDATORY 25 year sentence ) he boycotts France, he doesn't take peoples shit ( the reason they call it "the no spin zone" is because when someone starts repeating talking points, he tells them to shut the hell up) he calls a spade a spade, and he isn't afraid to speak his mind.

Why do you think he has the Number one slot in his time slots? The only people who don't like him are the ones who either 1) Keep repeating "free market" when discussing the oil industry gouging us, or 2) keep repeating "Bush is evil, no WMD's" when discussing the Iraq war.

Well, I find that O'Reilly spends more time claiming to distrust politicians than actually distrusting them (the one's on the right at least.)

I have to applaud his brave and unprecedented opposition to child molesters though. While the rest of the media lays laurels at the feet of people who brutally kidnap, rape and often kill innocent children, O'Reilly stands alone :rolleyes: . Way to make a stand against popular opinion, Bill.

Then there's his boycott of France...he's more worried about oil for food scandals than the much larger amount of American money that has simply disappeared with no record in the Iraq war effort.

O'Reilly is a stuffed-shirt pinhead. France may be our competitor on the world stage (though of course without the military, economic, or diplomatic power to really hurt us,) but they assuredly are not our enemy...unless we make them so. Your hot air in that direction is completely useless. O'Reilly simply rode the wave of anti-French sentiment and continues to flog that dead horse long after even the maggots have departed.

The last thing I would accuse O’Reily of is being spineless. A pompous neoconservative asshole, yes. But I reserve the term spineless for the likes of Larry King.

Well, I find that O'Reilly spends more time claiming to distrust politicians than actually distrusting them (the one's on the right at least.)

I have to applaud his brave and unprecedented opposition to child molesters though. While the rest of the media lays laurels at the feet of people who brutally kidnap, rape and often kill innocent children, O'Reilly stands alone :rolleyes: . Way to make a stand against popular opinion, Bill.

Then there's his boycott of France...he's more worried about oil for food scandals than the much larger amount of American money that has simply disappeared with no record in the Iraq war effort.

O'Reilly is a stuffed-shirt pinhead. France may be our competitor on the world stage (though of course without the military, economic, or diplomatic power to really hurt us,) but they assuredly are not our enemy...unless we make them so. Your hot air in that direction is completely useless. O'Reilly simply rode the wave of anti-French sentiment and continues to flog that dead horse long after even the maggots have departed.

Yeah, the france thing is completely moronic. Even more moronic is that he chooses to only boycott france (as if that is the only nation that opposed US intervention in Iraq :rolleyes:). It is as brave and principled as his stand against child molesters: Why not a China boycott Bill? Or Germany? (Actually it is a lot worse, but obviously motivated by the same desire to pander to the lowest common denominator).

You'd have to have watched the show for several years before you could have lost touch with reality so much that you think that he's actually an independent and isn't partisan. He thinks that he waged a war to save Christmas. He thinks there's such a thing as a far left wing in American politics. He staged an interview with Bush that was so blatantly scripted that I think I heard a pipe organ playing in the background. He might make the occaisional token "he's not totally perfect" statement about a Republican once in a while, but there's no such thing as a FOX host that doesn't have a conservative agenda.

If you think that Colmes is a liberal, he isn't. He's a self described moderate. And he isn't really even a host. He's a whipping boy. Why do you think that he wasn't on the episode with Tom Delay?

I didn't say he was partisan or an independent. All I said was he didn't have a blatant Republican agenda. If anything he's libertarian. I won't answer about the Bush interview, as neither I nor you have any idea as to the true happenings behind it. It could have been scripted, or it couldn't have.

As I said, I hold no opinion of him either way, I just enjoy the show. If people want to bash him, fine. I won't get in the way of opinion. But I'd like to see some proof along with the accusations behind them--at the least for the more wild ones.

Yeah, the france thing is completely moronic. Even more moronic is that he chooses to only boycott france (as if that is the only nation that opposed US intervention in Iraq :rolleyes:). It is as brave and principled as his stand against child molesters: Why not a China boycott Bill? Or Germany? (Actually it is a lot worse, but obviously motivated by the same desire to pander to the lowest common denominator).

Lol. In the cases where I agree with you Laca, I really agree with you. :D

I thought it was a funny typo. I don't see what all the fuss is about. I laughed myself silly once, while reading a news story on the CBC.ca website, and they'd included a photo captioned, 'Israeli tanks prepare to enter Svend Robinson'. It's you know, silly mistakes and the like. Good for a giggle.

1. O'Reilly has said the words "shut up" approximately 4 times in his career on Fox.
2. The Glick incident was not because O'Reilly disagreed. It was because the man was accusing the President of the US of plotting the 9/11 attacks, making a blatant and damning accusation, with no proof whatsoever. Ladies and gentlemen, that's called character assasination.

Intentional or not, it's pretty funny. I'd just love to see everyone rip the fuck out of O'Reilly. So much, in fact, that he commits suicide and gives all of us a fucking break.

Vandalisation of his tombstone wouldn't be a bad idea, either.

1. O'Reilly has said the words "shut up" approximately 4 times in his career on Fox.
2. The Glick incident was not because O'Reilly disagreed. It was because the man was accusing the President of the US of plotting the 9/11 attacks, making a blatant and damning accusation, with no proof whatsoever. Ladies and gentlemen, that's called character assasination.

Oh, are you doing this to defend O'Reilly, or to justify his absolutely filthy, scumbag method of journalism?

Typical leftist tactic. Nothing smart to say? Just make jokes so no one notices.

Nothing smart to say? Make sweeping, insulting generalizations about 'the left.'

Oh, are you doing this to defend O'Reilly, or to justify his absolutely filthy, scumbag method of journalism?
Filthy? He's brash, rude, and opinionated. He's biased as hell (though not in any particular political direction), but he admits the show is his opinion, and he digs up plenty of interesting topics and opinions. I see nothing wrong with it.

Filthy? He's brash, rude, and opinionated. He's biased as hell (though not in any particular political direction), but he admits the show is his opinion, and he digs up plenty of interesting topics and opinions. I see nothing wrong with it.

So, you see nothing wrong with him insulting the fuck out of anyone who has a differing opinion, be it subtle or blunt, not to mention the multitude of cut-offs?

That's filthy journalism in my book, bucko.

The show isn't called "Fox's Super-News". It's called "The Factor". It's not about reporting whatever the hell everyone else is. It'a all about Bill. If you don't like it, don't watch. I like it. Not that I always agree with Bill or that I think he's the best reporter/anchor out there. I just find a show where a man yells at people who came straight from Jerry Springer in between interviews with guests. Will he sink lower and show Sheehan? Maybe not, but that yell-fest might actually be funny as hell.

So, you see nothing wrong with him insulting the fuck out of anyone who has a differing opinion, be it subtle or blunt, not to mention the multitude of cut-offs?

That's filthy journalism in my book, bucko.
He doesn't do that. Glick is one example, and I already explained it. He rarely, rarely, RARELY insults guests, and even then only if they cross the moral line. (I mean, come on, how could he not insult the lawyers who claimed it was alright to blatanly lie to the court?) And the cut-offs are extremely rare, again only if someone insists on making unsubstantiated character assasinations.

2. The Glick incident was not because O'Reilly disagreed. It was because the man was accusing the President of the US of plotting the 9/11 attacks, making a blatant and damning accusation, with no proof whatsoever. Ladies and gentlemen, that's called character assasination.
Okay...

So, pray tell, where does Jeremy Glick anywhere in this transcript (http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/transcripts/oreillyglick.htm) accuse Dubya of planning the events of 11 September? Or what about this one (http://www.why-war.com/files/2003/07/oreilyfreakout.html)?

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.
It's pretty obvious that we was referring to the fact that, during the Soviet-Afghani War, military-training and weapons support was placed with the Taliban. Now the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and Osama bin Laden have these weapons and training and are turning them against us. Nowhere in there does he lay 11 September at either Bushs' feet.

Sorry for the double posting, but I didn't want to edit my last post again:

... 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.

I wanted to point this jewel out before you did, just to say that it is irrelevant to your argument. It simply points out the CIA's continuing Cold War practice of over-throwing popularly electing governments all over the world.

Again, nowhere does Mr. Glick assassinate W. or H.W. Bush's character.

I think somebody needs a hug. It really bothers you that I like Oreilly? Well, sorry, cause I do. At least he admits he's a pundit. And Ive seen him on NUMEROUS occasions speak ill of GWB's policies, as well as the ACLU. IN FACT, Ive seen him diss them both in the same sentence. And as for him being mean, thats kinda why I like him. reminds me of myself.:D

Well there you are then. Where exactly is the virtue in being excessively cruel? And I don't want you to apologize for idolizing the guy. I just want you to know that doing so speaks volumes towards your persona. If I said I admired Stalin that would raise your eyebrows, yes?

He doesn't do that. Glick is one example, and I already explained it. He rarely, rarely, RARELY insults guests, and even then only if they cross the moral line. (I mean, come on, how could he not insult the lawyers who claimed it was alright to blatanly lie to the court?) And the cut-offs are extremely rare, again only if someone insists on making unsubstantiated character assasinations.

Then why does he insult (passively, but he still does it) and cut people off every time I happen to stop on his show?

I can't believe you're actually defending this assfuck.

Now, I don't care much about O'Reilly either way. He has come good points at times, and sometimes he can be a complete asshole. However, after watching his show for several years, I can say that he doesn't have a Republican agenda. Not in the least. He bashes both sides. I'm sure he'd be quick to say "I'm not discriminatory; I hate all of you equally." to clarify things. However, to base a claim that he lacks morals or ethics... that's a tad over the line there. To even take a step further and attack his fans moreso is completely over the bounds of scrimage.

hmmm... You don't care about O'Reilly yet you've been watching his show for years. That doesn't make sense.

If he really does practice equal hatred, then I ask you: is that a positive message? Is it moral or ethical to be misanthropic? Because I really don't think that it is.


PS. Not sure which rules and 'bounds of scrimage' you're refering to there. I don't think I've broken any forum regs.

hmmm... You don't care about O'Reilly yet you've been watching his show for years. That doesn't make sense.

If he really does practice equal hatred, then I ask you: is that a positive message? Is it moral or ethical to be misanthropic? Because I really don't think that it is.


PS. Not sure which rules and 'bounds of scrimage' you're refering to there. I don't think I've broken any forum regs.

I don't care for O'Reilly in the sense that I feel the need to back his every claim. Neither, also, do I feel the need to bash him. I enjoy his show from time to time (and note that I don't watch it regularly--sorry if that wasn't mentioned earlier--I've just watched it in the span of a few years).

The equal hatred bit was a joke, son. Now get outta here, yer ruinin' my act! ;) But seriously, he does of course carry standards (whether they're the right ones are of course debatable), and sometimes he will find himself getting onto someone for not meeting them. There are plenty of times where he commends others, and some interviews that he plainly enjoys. If he openly declared that everyone was an asswipe of which he had no respect for, I'd immediately lose all interest (and respect) for the man in return.

As for 'lines of scrimage', I just feel it unnessecary to come across the way you did towards his viewers and/or fans. Saying it'd be easier to convince a neo-nazi that Jews are okay? Really, now. That's uncalled for. I don't believe you've broken any rules by the statement, it's just it felt rather unnessecary.

Sure, he's brash sometimes, and sometimes even rude. But he never throws softballs, he never lets people dodge questions, and he ridicules BOTH sides often. Whats wrong with that? Should he sit there smiling like an idiot, and be a polite, pathetic (read : MSNBC) spineless weasel? He's kinda the "Patton" of Cable news.


No, thats pretty much crap.
O'Reilly is now, and will likely always remain, a mouthpiece for the White House, as most other prominent anchors on Fox.

You say O'Reilly gives it to both sides?

Sure.

Why dont you find an instance where he was equally rude, obnoxious, and outright argumentative, to a prominent Republican, as he is to Democrats.
Show me an instance where he openly criticizes the Bush administration.

O'Reilly is the antithisis of everything Fox PRETENDS to be.
Fair and Balanced.
He is neither.

This is the same O Reilly who whined this week that he was tired of being picked on and people making personal attacks on him. Seems like he can give it out but he can't take it. :rolleyes:

Someone find out what proper aggressive journalism is, please? I have to go to lectures now, but someone, please, find Paxman vs. Howard on the Interweb somewhere?
Best interviewer I've seen in recent times is Tim Sebastian who used to front Hardtalk on BBC. He could be very aggressive and forceful, yet never did I see him once cut his interviewee off, insult them, tell them to shut up or generally act an ass and think he was more important than the person he was interviewing.
Real shame he's no longer on the show.

No, thats pretty much crap.
O'Reilly is now, and will likely always remain, a mouthpiece for the White House, as most other prominent anchors on Fox.

You say O'Reilly gives it to both sides?

Sure.

Why dont you find an instance where he was equally rude, obnoxious, and outright argumentative, to a prominent Republican, as he is to Democrats.
Show me an instance where he openly criticizes the Bush administration.

O'Reilly is the antithisis of everything Fox PRETENDS to be.
Fair and Balanced.
He is neither.Well, how about his stance against big oil? Or his stance on the border? Ever hear him go on a rant against Bush for his border policies? (I have) Did you see him rip Neil Cavuto ( a FOX anchor, nonetheless) a new one for standing up for the oil companies?

What I don't get is you claim to be so knowledgable of Orelly, and also claim to hate him. So which is it? Do you watch a show you hate everyday?
I watch him everyday, so I think I'm a bit more knowledgable of his stances and his record than you. That is, unless you are a fan of the show, which you said you aren't

care to explain the inconsistencies? Or do you just regurgitate what you hear on Daily Kos and other websites?