NationStates Jolt Archive

On the March 21 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor, host Bill O'Reilly attacked co-host Lis Wiehl for asserting that the Bush administration had offered to allow White House staffers to appear before the congressional committees investigating the controversial firings of eight U.S. attorneys only if no transcript of the interviews is produced. O'Reilly called her claim a "lie" and maintained that Wiehl "did not do [her] homework."

O'Reilly instructed his staff to turn off Wiehl's microphone: "Cut her mike. Cut her mike. She's not allowed to speak for three minutes." He went on to ask: "What can we do to her? What can we do to her?" While Wiehl's voice could be heard in the background, her microphone appeared to be turned off.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703220018

Well, this is just great, first he silences her for misinforming his audience, and then proceeds to(you guessed it) misinform his audience.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/fielding-usa/?resultpage=2&
Here is the letter from Bush's aid to the investigating committee, you can see it expressly says that there will be no transcript.

O'Reilly is an mean, arrogant bastard who also happens to be an idiot. Hearing it again should let people know what this guy is like but apparently people like mean, arrogant bastards who as O'Reilly himself so eloquently put it "doesn't do his homework".

I once said on here that Rush was worse than O'Reilly. I thought about it afterward and knew I was wrong, but wasn't important enough to fix. I think Rush is more intelligent .. but they are both still stupid.

I quite like watching him and am now using his style to dismiss any debate where I'm losing due to facts.

For example - my protagonist comes out with a fact that completely destroys my argument, my response:

(waves hand dismissively) "I'm sorry, I just don't buy that".

Do it enough and people quite quickly turn to violence

Posted from hospital...again

My mom takes after him when it comes to politics *shudder*. The other day, she was parroting that tired "Al Gore wastes energy" story. I tried explaining that the charges were brought up by a patently conservative think-tank, and that, while Gore does use more energy than average, he makes up for it by using renewable energy and carbon credits. She then said that just because I say it doesn't make it true. I said that the whole story was baseless slander, and that what I was telling her was based on the facts. She then, and I kid you not, said, "I don't care about your 'facts'. You walk around saying that everything has to be so 'factual'. I don't care if that's what the papers said! He's still wasteful!"

She sounded just like Stephen Colbert's "character". It was surreal.

O'Reilly is little more than a bully with a loud mouth. Naturally, he does great in television, Fox was wise in chosing him as their running boy...

His opinions of politics are his own, but that does not account for his behavior, which can only be discribed as an inferiority complex. He is a small fish in a big pond, desperately trying to build himself up while crushing everyone else underfoot. Toward this end, he will use every tactic in the book, from unconfirmable or sometimes fabricated information, to rudeness, to sheer pettiness.

At this point, absolutely no one should take this man seriously. And anyone who does should, in turn, not be taken seriously.

O'Reilly acted like a stuffed asshole. Is this news to anyone?

O'Reilly acted like a stuffed asshole. Is this news to anyone?

Why is it that so many people can say things far more simply than I can. Do I just tend to overanalyze?

Is this where someone is supposed to say "In other news, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead"?

Is this where someone is supposed to say "In other news, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead"?

HE IS???!!!

Dude! Why didn't you tell me!? I've been sending arms shipments to Spain for the last 2 years! Now I look like a complete ass!

Is this where someone is supposed to say "In other news, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead"?

I was tempted to pull a "scientists have confirmed that water is, in fact, wet." but rose above such pettiness. For now.

Why is it that so many people can say things far more simply than I can. Do I just tend to overanalyze?

I'm just good at saying things simply.

It's probably one reason the forum mods are so familiar with me...

Is this where someone is supposed to say "In other news, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead"?
Still? Man, I'm batting zero in my resurrection pool. I'm still doing good against the Christians, but the Buddhists are kicking my ass...
HE IS???!!!

Dude! Why didn't you tell me!? I've been sending arms shipments to Spain for the last 2 years! Now I look like a complete ass!
Or your joke, which beat me...dammit...

He was on some Oprah show and because people here discuss him from time to time I decided to watch and judge for myself.

He is a divisive, malicious reductionist polemic of the worst kind. Clearly those who consume the shit he pumps out have no appreciation whatsoever for facts, critical thinking and logic.

Hey, now. O'Reilly is my hero, for no other reason than he can get people to believe him with just his face being associated with Fox News.

In the military, Fox is on at the Dining Facility all the time, so everybody watches, and also silently condemns my libertarian views.

*scoffs*

Hey, now. O'Reilly is my hero, for no other reason than he can get people to believe him with just his face being associated with Fox News.

In the military, Fox is on at the Dining Facility all the time, so everybody watches, and also silently condemns my libertarian views.

*scoffs*

They force you to watch Fox...? Ugh...

I pity you sir...

And with that, I'm off.

*zoom!*

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703220018

Well, this is just great, first he silences her for misinforming his audience, and then proceeds to(you guessed it) misinform his audience.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/fielding-usa/?resultpage=2&
Here is the letter from Bush's aid to the investigating committee, you can see it expressly says that there will be no transcript.

So? It's Bill O'Reilly's show. He can do whatever he damn pleases on his show, the only people he has to answer to are his bosses - and I don't think they'll be axing his show anytime soon, since it's pretty popular. A lot of people like what he's got to say, and if they also like the way he does stuff, he'll keep getting the ratings and viewers. I don't see a problem with silencing one of your guests when they don't know when to shut the hell up.

For the record, Bill O'Reilly is famous. Not that I needed to tell you, but, being famous adds credibility to his opinion. It shouldn't, but it does.

What I don't understand is why people go on his show, knowing how he has treated his guests in the past, and then act shocked and complain when's rude to you. I think he's an asshole, but it's his show and he can act howeverthe fuck he wants on it. If you don't wanna get yelled at and shushed on national TV, don't go on the O'Reilly Factor, it's just that simple.

O'Reilly, James Dobson, Tucker Carlson, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, and.. well.. most of the rich white male Republican Congress would be locked in a deep pit. There'd be a water fountain and a fire pit but only so much wood, no toilets, no food, and-- oh ho ho, Virginia-- of course, no way out. Otherwise, though, it would just be a stark, empty stone pit. And they'd be left there. Just... left there.

To keep the fire going they'd eventually have to burn their clothes, and when they ran out of clothes, well... fat burns, hey? And they'd want that fire to keep burning so that they didn't have to huddle together all nekkid for warmth. Plus, to keep from starving to death, they would have no recourse but cannibalism, and really, if you're going to eat another person I'm thinking you're gonna want to cook them. <sings> Throw the GOP on the bar-bee.

Then, when it was down to just one-- glutted on the flesh of his peers and permanently suffused with the stink of burned fat-- he would have "I cannibalised the Right Wing and all I got was this stupid brand" tattoo'd across their forehead and be released to wander the land of Nod :-P We could call it "Survivor: the GOP" (where P stands for Pit).

The question is... who would be the last one standing? Place your bets!

For the record, Bill O'Reilly is famous. Not that I needed to tell you, but, being famous adds credibility to his opinion. It shouldn't, but it does.

Infamous is I think the word you are thinking of ;) which as the three amigos will tell you is more than famous :)

Stupid arrogant bastard. I hate people like this on tv.

I've always wanted to call in to one of his shows, just to see if I can outscream him.

"Survivor: the GOP" (where P stands for Pit).


Giant Ol' Pit?

At least Fox didn't pick up Hal Turner. If you know nothing about him, he's like Bill O'Reilly on crack (literally).

Stupid arrogant bastard. I hate people like this on tv.

Glad with you agree with me on this. Of course I'd be surprised of the people who DIDN'T agree but I suppose stupid arrogant bastards would agree with other stupid arrogant bastards such as Bill O'Reilly. They do seem to flock together.

I once said on here that Rush was worse than O'Reilly. I thought about it afterward and knew I was wrong, but wasn't important enough to fix. I think Rush is more intelligent .. but they are both still stupid.

Rush isn't more intelligent. He's more clever, but he's clever about stupidity. What makes Rush more intelligent than O'Reilly is that Rush is essentially a selfish, useless, waste of space who enjoys the inordinate amount of space he has been given to waste. As he wallows in it he has a mild effect on those around him, like how those standing around a pig's pen are likely to get splattered with mud when the pig is feeling frisky.

O'Reilly is an angry, useless waste of space who is terrified that when people realize how much space he's wasting, they'll come to remove him from it. So he spends all his time trying to take other people's space away so they'll be too worried about their own space to worry about how much he's taking up.

I've always wanted to call in to one of his shows, just to see if I can outscream him.

You can't outscream a man who can turn off your mike.

And then, remember the guy who got in a barb before O'Reilly could hang up on him? He implied that for having said something O'Reilly didn't like FOX security was going to visit his house and beat him up.

For the record, Bill O'Reilly is famous. Not that I needed to tell you, but, being famous adds credibility to his opinion. It shouldn't, but it does.

No it doesn't. It adds audibility to his arguments.

It may add credulity to his audience, but that's not the same as credibility to an audience.

I don't see a problem with silencing one of your guests when they don't know when to shut the hell up.

What about silencing a guest for not going along with your view, then flat-out lying to the public. Usually when journalists lie on national news, they get fired or reprimanded, see Dan Rather.

Kinda makes you wonder why he takes guests on if he's just going to cut their mikes and call them liars.

One man entered the dark pit of the Factor and weilding the righteous sword of sarcasm, cut down the beast. Stephen Colbert.

Kinda makes you wonder why he takes guests on if he's just going to cut their mikes and call them liars.

It makes him feel big and important. O'Reilly can control if the guest gets to make their case or be cut off and have his viewers or listeners assume that the guest must have been completely wrong. After all, for those who follow him, they know that O'Reilly can do no wrong, he is the light of truth and justice and all that shit.

Kinda makes you wonder why he takes guests on if he's just going to cut their mikes and call them liars.
a) To give the impression that he isn't a total douchebag.
b) To make it look like all his opponents are lying douchebags to an audience gullible enough to believe him.

Gota love the irony in the left / neo-left's super amazing stupendous ability to so selectively recognize arrogance, pompousness, aggressiveness in debate and stupidity on such an ideological bias.

It almost brings a tear to the eye.... almost.

Gota love the irony in the left / neo-left's super amazing stupendous ability to so selectively recognize arrogance, pompousness, aggressiveness in debate and stupidity on such an ideological bias.

It almost brings a tear to the eye.... almost.

What cess pit did you recently crawl from? Thanks for not contributing anything to the thread beyond your own sorry excuse for a troll-attempt.

Gota love the irony in the left / neo-left's super amazing stupendous ability to so selectively recognize arrogance, pompousness, aggressiveness in debate and stupidity on such an ideological bias.

It almost brings a tear to the eye.... almost.

Oh jeez. :rolleyes: Yep, it's all the lefties. Blame them.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703220018

Well, this is just great, first he silences her for misinforming his audience, and then proceeds to(you guessed it) misinform his audience.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/fielding-usa/?resultpage=2&
Here is the letter from Bush's aid to the investigating committee, you can see it expressly says that there will be no transcript.

Bill O'Reilly should be slashed to ribbons with a sword made of glass shards, then put into a fertilizer plant, to be spread over farms everywhere.

Gota love the irony in the left / neo-left's super amazing stupendous ability to so selectively recognize arrogance, pompousness, aggressiveness in debate and stupidity on such an ideological bias.

It almost brings a tear to the eye.... almost.

"neo-left?" Do go ahead and define what "neo-left" means.

Here's my guess - you see "neocon" thrown around a lot and so you have "neoleft" for no other reason than "I'm rubber and you're glue." Prove me wrong.

Gota love the irony in the left / neo-left's super amazing stupendous ability to so selectively recognize arrogance, pompousness, aggressiveness in debate and stupidity on such an ideological bias.

It almost brings a tear to the eye.... almost.

Even if this is true which I have seen no evidence of to the extent that the right shows itself, would it make O'Reilly any less of an arrogant prick?

"neo-left?" Do go ahead and define what "neo-left" means.

Here's my guess - you see "neocon" thrown around a lot and so you have "neoleft" for no other reason than "I'm rubber and you're glue." Prove me wrong.
*groans* :rolleyes:


Be educated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left).

There, now you've learned something new today. Wasn't this fun?

*groans* :rolleyes:


Be educated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left).

There, now you've learned something new today. Wasn't this fun?

The New Left is a term used in different countries to describe left-wing movements that occurred in the 1960s and 1970s.

First line.

F-ed in the A by your own source.

*snip crying/bullshit*
*snip bullshit*

Aaaaaand IGNORE!

I could be wrong, but I believe Lis Wiehl is a regular on O'Reilly's show--like a sidekick who doesn't get to talk much. So he did it to his own employee. Kind of adds to the douchebaggery, doesn't it?

What cess pit did you recently crawl from? Thanks for not contributing anything to the thread beyond your own sorry excuse for a troll-attempt.
Correction. It should have been "What cesspit did you recently crawl from before falling into this one?" :p


Oh jeez. :rolleyes: Yep, it's all the lefties. Blame them.
Blame?! For what? :confused:

Someone obviously hasn't read my post too thoroughly.


Even if this is true which I have seen no evidence of to the extent that the right shows itself, would it make O'Reilly any less of an arrogant prick?
But I never was trying, in any way, to say that he is any less of one.

*groans* :rolleyes:


Be educated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left).

There, now you've learned something new today. Wasn't this fun?

I wasn't even ALIVE in the 60s or 70s. So, you'll have to use a different term if you want to dismiss me (and I'm guessing, most of the other posters on this thread) with a single cliched phrase. How about "limp-wristed liberals?"

Gota love the irony in the left / neo-left's super amazing stupendous ability to so selectively recognize arrogance, pompousness, aggressiveness in debate and stupidity on such an ideological bias.

It almost brings a tear to the eye.... almost.

What is the left's answer to Bill O'Reilly?

But I never was trying, in any way, to say that he is any less of one.

Than there really is no point bringing up any irony to this thread. O'Reilly is a jerk and nothing is going to change that. But then that is the point in being a talk show host isn't it? Only O'Reilly takes it to a whole new level.

What is the left's answer to Bill O'Reilly?

The Daily Show

The Daily Show

Different level. I'm not exposed to an equal of The Daily Show with a right point of view, though I feel it must exist. I guess you could say the Colbert Report but that is also of a different level and these are also comedy shows where comedy is their first obligation.

Different level. I'm not exposed to an equal of The Daily Show with a right point of view, though I feel it must exist.
i just can't think of any other fact-distorting liberals except possibly Moore, but he's intermittent.

and by fact-distorting, i actually mean the Daily Show is my main source of news

i just can't think of any other fact-distorting liberals except possibly Moore, but he's intermittent.

and by fact-distorting, i actually mean the Daily Show is my main source of news

It was mine too for a while. I stopped watching it recently for absolutely no reason at all. I'm not bored with it, I just haven't been watching it. I just mean, who on the left is out there on a news channel shouting down guests and giving out false information from a left perspective. I mean, not just false in a "I don't agree with that opinion way" but false as in telling lies that can be found out with a simple google search.

Gota love the irony in the left / neo-left's super amazing stupendous ability to so selectively recognize arrogance, pompousness, aggressiveness in debate and stupidity on such an ideological bias.

It almost brings a tear to the eye.... almost.

OK, I'll bite... Give me an example where a left-wing talk show host (radio or TV) ordered the microphone of a conservative guest cut off.

The Daily Show

Perhaps in the correct way to run a show but not in matching O'Reilly's sheer assholery. Jon Stewart certainly doesn't yell his guests down, call them stupid or anything of that sort.

The Daily Show

But, the glaring difference is that TDS takes the time to point out idiocy on both sides. O'Liely is just a petulant thirteen-year-old in the body of a fifty-something. His parents were probably beatniks who read bad poetry at nightclubs. It all seems like adolecent rebelion to me. Emphasis on adolecent

But, the glaring difference is that TDS takes the time to point out idiocy on both sides. O'Liely is just a petulant thirteen-year-old in the body of a fifty-something. His parents were probably beatniks who read bad poetry at nightclubs. It all seems like adolecent rebelion to me. Emphasis on adolecent
We've tried nothing and we're fresh out of ideas!

which would have been funnier if I had found a picture of Ned Flander's parents...

The Daily Show
How? Maybe the Colbert Report because the Colbert Report is supposed to be exact satire of the Bill O'Reilly bullshit hour. The Daily Show is just sit down comedy about the news in the vein of SNL's Weekend Report.
The correct answer would have been there isn't one.

Well, it is his show..

Well, it is his show..
Yeah, but how are we going to excuse all the people supporting and agreeing with him?

Yeah, but how are we going to excuse all the people supporting and agreeing with him?

Strong pain medication?

Strong pain medication?

Along with fluffles. Lots and lots of fluffles. :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

That and do your best to reduce the viewership of the Factor. Somehow...

Along with fluffles. Lots and lots of fluffles. :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:
Get away from me.
That and do your best to reduce the viewership of the Factor. Somehow...

Put porn on at the same time?

Get away from me.

Come on, man! You know fluffles make us all feel better! :fluffles:

Put porn on at the same time?

That would certainly offend all his conservative viewers. It would be amusing as well.

How? Maybe the Colbert Report because the Colbert Report is supposed to be exact satire of the Bill O'Reilly bullshit hour. The Daily Show is just sit down comedy about the news in the vein of SNL's Weekend Report.
The correct answer would have been there isn't one.

Teh_pantless is that you with a new name?

The O'Reilly Factor is the closest thing in reality to The Eric Cartman Show.

"Screw you guys, I'm going home!"

The O'Reilly Factor is the closest thing in reality to The Eric Cartman Show.

"Screw you guys, I'm going home!"

And "Hey, I'll kick you in the nuts for it." With some "It's all the poor people's fault."

The Daily Show

Carlson responded by saying that Stewart criticizes news organizations for not holding public officials accountable, but when he interviewed John Kerry, Stewart asked a series of softball questions. Stewart responded that the media is in dismal shape if "[it is looking] to Comedy Central for [its] cues on integrity." When Carlson continued to press Stewart on the Kerry issue, Stewart said, "You're on CNN! The show that leads into me is puppets making prank phone calls! What is wrong with you?"

That really sums it right about up.

That really sums it right about up.

Damn straight.

The Daily Show

When has Jon Stewart *ever* 'muted' a guest on his show, no matter how strongly he disagreed with them? I've seen him with guests who it was obvious that he thought they were utterly, frighteningly wrong, and while he might have used some sarcasm and tried-- rightly, in his mind-- to point out the ludacricies in their argument, I also noticed how he was with his audience. I've seen him chastise them for not at least respecting a guest's right to spew their nonsense. Has O'Reilly ever shown even that much of a modicum of respect to a guest that he strongly disagreed with?

While I agree that him being a dick is old news I still think it should be pointed out over and over until his audience is gone

When has Jon Stewart *ever* 'muted' a guest on his show, no matter how strongly he disagreed with them? I've seen him with guests who it was obvious that he thought they were utterly, frighteningly wrong, and while he might have used some sarcasm and tried-- rightly, in his mind-- to point out the ludacricies in their argument, I also noticed how he was with his audience. I've seen him chastise them for not at least respecting a guest's right to spew their nonsense. Has O'Reilly ever shown even that much of a modicum of respect to a guest that he strongly disagreed with?

No, he hasn't. And I can say this with the highest level of confidence.

John Stewart's honorable. Bill O'Reilly is a 6'4" bully who's always had his way.

...The Eric Cartman Show.


I'd watch it.

And "Hey, I'll kick you in the nuts for it." With some "It's all the poor people's fault."

And Liz Wiehl just got told, "GET YOUR BITCH ASS BACK IN THE KITCHEN AND MAKE ME A PIE!!"

Giant Ol' Pit?

Gangrenous Ol' Putrescence?

i just can't think of any other fact-distorting liberals except possibly Moore, but he's intermittent.

and by fact-distorting, i actually mean the Daily Show is my main source of news

But the Daily Show isn't "the lefts" answer to Bill O'Reilly. It's common sense's answer to Bill O'Reilly.

Now there are people like Mike Malloy and Randi Rhodes who are liberals who voice their political opinion loudly and angrily, but the corporate culture of this country are afraid to support them. Mike Malloy had one of the highest rated radio shows in New York, but could hardly get any sponsers because people thought he was too "extreme." As though calling Bush a bastard is any more extreme than the crap that comes out of O'Reilly's, Hannity's, or Glenn "prove to me you're not an enemy of this country" Beck.

As to the nature of fact distorting, that's not what the Daily Show does.

Imagine lies graded on a wheel.

180 degrees from the truth is the total opposite. Like when Harriet Myers said that George Bush is a brilliant man, or when George Bush said that he never said that he didn't care where Osama Bil Laden was. Such lies are fairly rare from actual politicians, and when they tell them, they tend not to repeat them. They're just not effective. People get the truth just as well out of a 180 degree lie as they do out of the truth. If you just assume the opposite of what such a liar says, well then you know the truth.

Stephen Colbert tells such 180 degree lies every night. And we learn the truth by understanding that the opposite is correct. And this is not fact distortion because it is his intention that we learn the truth via the opposite of his statements.

270 degree lies are the far more common type of lie you get out of the right wing. In fact the vast majority of what the right publicly says is a 270 degree lie. This is when true statements are referred to, then spoken inexactly. Then they are analyzed in an absurd manner to create an impression that is completely removed from reality.

This would be like where Brit Hume argued that Iraq was a safer place than California because more Americans die in California than in Iraq. Completely ignoring the fact that population distribution is wildly different.

This is also the kind of lie Bush is telling when he says that Congress had the same information he did, or that they "voted for war."

The Daily Show tells lies 90 degrees from the truth. They will tell you something that is completely true, then in a different tone, to indicate that the next thing they say is untrue, they will say something untrue to indicate how absurd the true thing was, or just to be silly. Like when they said that some Asian guy's body was identified by his "sideways buttcrack." It's not a distortion of the facts because they're being up front about the fact that it's not true.

Bill O'Reilly does the same thing. When he is citing a news story he will say what the story is and then say "now that's true." Then he will go on to say the bit that isn't true. The difference is that he will never agree when you say that he ends on punchlines that are blatantly untrue.

The most insidious of all is a 360 degree lie. When you say something completely true in an effort to create an impression that is totally untrue. Like when Brit Hume said that FDR wanted to privatize social security as Dubya does, by selecting a quote from FDR in which he said that government contributions could go down as citizen contributions went up. FDR was speaking about an "eventual" system that we have now, but Brit Hume pretended that it meant something completely different.

Another example would be the way that they convinced people that Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were connected by saying "9-11," "Saddam Hussein," and "Bin Laden" in the same sentence over and over again. It didn't work when they said it outright (180 degree lie), but when they insinuated it by never actually saying it they managed to convince people of it when they already knew better. And this was without actually making the claim. It takes an accomplished liar to lie to you while telling the truth, but the deception masters in the White House and FOX can lie to you by telling the truth.

So? It's Bill O'Reilly's show. He can do whatever he damn pleases on his show, the only people he has to answer to are his bosses - and I don't think they'll be axing his show anytime soon, since it's pretty popular. A lot of people like what he's got to say, and if they also like the way he does stuff, he'll keep getting the ratings and viewers. I don't see a problem with silencing one of your guests when they don't know when to shut the hell up.

The problem is that O'Reilly shouts down dissenting views when someone has the upper hand on him. He tends to take information out of context or just make shit up out of whole cloth. If he's supposed to be a "respected" news talking head then he should try to stick to the facts. It being your own damn show doesn't change the truth.