O'Riely factor...

Tweek · Mar 6, 2003

O'Reilly is a closed-minded ass. I've seen other guests back up his false accusations with facts, only to see him brush it off and move onto a different point to attack with.

He needs a serious :nuts:

patconnole · Mar 6, 2003

Here's a tape of it, and an interview of the kid.

http://stream.realimpact.net/rihurl.ram?file=webactive/demnow/dn20030211.ra&start=34:44.3

Pretty lame of Mr. Bill.

ohio · Mar 6, 2003

O'Reilly =

Silver · Mar 6, 2003

That's the whole box though....he's just the bag

Serial Midget · Mar 6, 2003

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

This statement pretty much sums up what his show is all about... it's not about anything other than Bill O'Reilly using current events for his own exploitive, self promoting purposes.

On the other hand... it is sometimes the funniest talking head show around. Bill has a lot of gal calling himself a journalist, I think of him as a entertainer.

mdavid · Mar 10, 2003

It seems you are missing the point. Looks to me like Glicks position was without merit. He really thinks 1. that Bush is not the legit president and is therefore ignorant of how our electoral process works 2. that the mujideen are responsible for 9/11. Isn't historical context important to anyone? We also worked with Iraq in the past with biologicals, killed the indians, and ignored hitler for too long......shallow arguements are not hard to mount.

Serial Midget · Mar 10, 2003

So? It is his viewpoint and he was an invited guest...

Originally posted by mdavid
It seems you are missing the point. Looks to me like Glicks position was without merit. He really thinks 1. that Bush is not the legit president and is therefore ignorant of how our electoral process works 2. that the mujideen are responsible for 9/11. Isn't historical context important to anyone? We also worked with Iraq in the past with biologicals, killed the indians, and ignored hitler for too long......shallow arguements are not hard to mount.

mdavid · Mar 10, 2003

just for the record I don't agree with all of Bills views.

But if it were my show I'd be MORE of an ass. Especially when I invite someone to debate with facts and they just ramble and state opinions.

People also have the opinion that alien scientists created us and will return..shouldn't they get flamed as a guest also? Equating the US Govnt with Al Quada is ignorant and deserving of the lashing.

At least bring up Bills anti rap arguements and his propping up marshall mathers mom as the victem....while she sits there looking like the crack hoe she acts like.....

patconnole · Mar 10, 2003

Originally posted by mdavid
just for the record I don't agree with all of Bills views.

But if it were my show I'd be MORE of an ass. Especially when I invite someone to debate with facts and they just ramble and state opinions.

People also have the opinion that alien scientists created us and will return..shouldn't they get flamed as a guest also? Equating the US Govnt with Al Quada is ignorant and deserving of the lashing.

At least bring up Bills anti rap arguements and his propping up marshall mathers mom as the victem....while she sits there looking like the crack hoe she acts like.....

If the point of bill's show is to flame people with different opinions than his, then you're right. Wouldn't that have been crazy if Bill had said, "Wait, could you explain that? No, go ahead, I won't interrupt you. I want to understand this."

I don't think the kid is ignorant of how the electoral process works--- he's very aware of how the voting process works in Florida.

BurlyShirley · Mar 10, 2003

I think O'reilly calls it as he sees it. They put him on tv because he usually makes a pretty good point. I agree with some of what he has to say, but i dont put any more merit into his thoughts than those of people on this board.

Serial Midget · Mar 10, 2003

I think they put him on TV because he is entertaining. If his ratings slip his "pretty good points" won't save him. I actually haven't seen his show in a year or better. At first I thought he was funny and interesting but eventually all his shows seemed to be the same. He was right and all his guests were wrong, you needn't pay any attention to the guests viewpoint, Bills viewpoint is the only correct one - anything different is simply anti-American.

I get offended whenever anyone tries to tell me what is and isn't anti-American.

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I think O'reilly calls it as he sees it. They put him on tv because he usually makes a pretty good point. I agree with some of what he has to say, but i dont put any more merit into his thoughts than those of people on this board.

ummbikes · Mar 10, 2003

Originally posted by Serial Midget

I get offended whenever anyone tries to tell me what is and isn't anti-American.

That is unamerican. :monkey:

Serial Midget · Mar 10, 2003

Originally posted by ummbikes
That is unamerican.

Duly offended. :monkey:

ummbikes · Mar 10, 2003

Originally posted by Serial Midget
Duly offended.

You shouldn't be that is Un-American.

On a lighter note, Springfield .45 or Glock 10mm?

Serial Midget · Mar 10, 2003

Originally posted by ummbikes
You shouldn't be that is Un-American.

On a lighter note, Springfield .45 or Glock 10mm?

Who's head? Springfield has Night Sight and that could be handy. :monkey:

ohio · Mar 10, 2003

Originally posted by BurlySurly
They put him on tv because he usually makes a pretty good point.

They put him on TV for the same reason they put Anna Nicole Smith on TV:

Spectacle.

BurlyShirley · Mar 10, 2003

Originally posted by ohio
They put him on TV for the same reason they put Anna Nicole Smith on TV:

Spectacle.

Well, what spectacle would there be if he didnt make a good point?

patconnole · Mar 10, 2003

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Well, what spectacle would there be if he didnt make a good point?

He tells people what they want to hear, while quieting voices they don't.

Ah, what do I know, I don't watch the show.

ohio · Mar 10, 2003

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Well, what spectacle would there be if he didnt make a good point?

The spectacle of a psychopath badgering unsuspecting guests.

Just because the lions ate the gladiators, doesn't mean the lions "made a good point." It means they were hungry.

BurlyShirley · Mar 10, 2003

Originally posted by ohio
The spectacle of a psychopath badgering unsuspecting guests.

Just because the lions ate the gladiators, doesn't mean the lions "made a good point." It means they were hungry.

Its not like Bill O'reilly is an overly exciting guy or anything man. There are plenty of people who take what he says as gospel, and although i dont really agree with some of his views, i at least admit that he always has an argument. There's no spectacle in watching some 70 year old dude blabber on and on, its the simple connectivity people make with either Bill's views or the guest's.

ohio · Mar 10, 2003

Originally posted by BurlySurly
he always has an argument.

Always having an argument does not make any of them valid.

And being senile doesn't excuse him from being a close-minded douchebag. It just makes him a sadly inept close-minded douchebag.

If you say anything loud enough on TV, some people will believe it. Hell, even if you say it quietly on the internet some people will believe it.

ummbikes · Mar 12, 2003

I like Bill, I don't always agree with him.

He is entertaining. Plus he did call the Red Cross out when they were looking to divert 9-11 donations to other funds.

He is no better or no worse than any of the other talking heads on TV.

I would like to see him and James Carville in a cage match.
I think Bill has the advantage on size but Carville looks like a scrapper.

BurlyShirley · Mar 12, 2003

Originally posted by ohio

If you say anything loud enough on TV, some people will believe it. Hell, even if you say it quietly on the internet some people will believe it.

Which is precisely why so many people are so liberal. They own most the airspace.

The fact of the matter is, he does make valid arguments, and often times, being so far liberal narrows your mind as much as any conservative's.

I certainly think that hearing opposing viewpoints, whether i agree with them or not, stimulates thought, and eventually leads to a more well rounded opinion on a given situation. At the very least, O'reilly invokes thought, and thats never a bad thing.

Talk about being close minded. :monkey:

ohio · Mar 12, 2003

Originally posted by BurlySurly

I certainly think that hearing opposing viewpoints, whether i agree with them or not, stimulates thought, and eventually leads to a more well rounded opinion on a given situation.

First, by definition, no one agrees with opposing viewpoints.

Second, if I didn't agree that hearing out the opposition stimulates thought, I wouldn't spend any time in this forum. However, I choose to hear opposing viewpoints from people who have earned my intellectual respect. Plenty of scholars, some journalists, and a limited number of politicians (of whom I disagree with roughly as many as I agree) have done that. Certain folks in this forum have done that.

Bill O'Reilly certainly has not... until he learns to formulate a sound and valid argument, back up his assertions with fact, and treat people with basic respect he does nothing but (cue melodrama) make the world a less understanding and more hostile place. He stimulates anger, not thought.

edit: and please tell me you're not asserting that the source of all liberalism is media propaganda...

"precisely?" um, yeah....

ohio · Mar 12, 2003

Originally posted by BurlySurly
being so far liberal narrows your mind as much as any conservative's.

don't assume you know me well enough to know just how "far" liberal I am, or when and how my mind might narrows.

Silver · Mar 12, 2003

It's that liberal media again...This would have never happened if Strom Thurmond would have been elected.

llkoolkeg · Mar 12, 2003

Originally posted by ummbikes
You shouldn't be that is Un-American.

On a lighter note, Springfield .45 or Glock 10mm?

...a 200 grain JHP, that is.

JK...JK!

I own the Glock Model 20 10mm...pre-ban w/15 rd mags and have fired the Springfield .45 at the range. The answer, as usual, depends upon your purpose for the weapon. For all out magnum-level firepower, you cannot top the Glock. I have mine loaded with 15+1 200 grain JHP Black Talons- yeah, I ain't F'ing around. The ammo's more expensive, of course, so it's not a range gun. If I had to take any one handgun of mine into harm's way, though, without hesitation it'd be the Model 20.

The Springfield is nice, has good knockdown without overpenetration, is cheaper to shoot and is better for small hands unless you get a pre-ban model. Probably better for home defense unless you're expecting a crowd, due to the lesser mag capacity. I own a stainless .45 Ruger KP90 w/Hogues. It felt better to me than the Springfield and was less expensive. Given my druthers, for a .45 and money being no object, I like the Sig 220 gov't model.

We should organize an RM range day sometime! :cool:

Serial Midget · Mar 12, 2003

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I certainly think that hearing opposing viewpoints, whether i agree with them or not, stimulates thought, and eventually leads to a more well rounded opinion on a given situation. At the very least, O'reilly invokes thought, and thats never a bad thing.

I don't think I can be accused of being some sort of left wing liberal... :rolleyes:

but... O'Reiley doesn't allow other viewpoints to be heard - his whole show is devoted to the ridicule of viewpoints he does not share. I used to think it was funny but now I think he's just a clown.

Serial Midget · Mar 12, 2003

Originally posted by ohio
Bill O'Reilly certainly has not... until he learns to formulate a sound and valid argument, back up his assertions with fact, and treat people with basic respect he does nothing but (cue melodrama) make the world a less understanding and more hostile place. He stimulates anger, not thought.

WORD.

patconnole · Mar 12, 2003

Originally posted by ohio

Bill O'Reilly certainly has not... until he learns to formulate a sound and valid argument, back up his assertions with fact, and treat people with basic respect he does nothing but (cue melodrama) make the world a less understanding and more hostile place. He stimulates anger, not thought.

I'm mad just thinking about it.

BurlyShirley · Mar 12, 2003

Originally posted by ohio

edit: and please tell me you're not asserting that the source of all liberalism is media propaganda...

Not all, but a fair chunk i'd say.

My only knowledge of your views comes from this forum. If put in a situation to make a judgement, the only one i could logically come to would be decided by the limited exposure ive seen here. Those have been largely liberal, so at least understand where that comes from. I have a feeling you do, but were just looking for something witty to call me on.

Anyway, it's become typical to see the things you disagree with here, and im sure im in the same boat. My whole point is that Bill O'reilly, and those like him, are good to have on the television, if for nothing more, to have an opposing viewpoint. Someone, whether right or wrong, needs to question everything to keep things honest.

YOU may not like the way he does it, but his ratings and book sales certainly suggest that a segment of society values what he has to say. That, or they staunchly oppose it and still pay attention and gain useful ground in arguing their own causes.

Precisely :rolleyes:

BurlyShirley · Mar 12, 2003

Originally posted by Serial Midget
I don't think I can be accused of being some sort of left wing liberal... but... O'Reiley doesn't allow other viewpoints to be heard - his whole show is devoted to the ridicule of viewpoints he does not share. I used to think it was funny but now I think he's just a clown.

Whether or not his show goes the way we think it should is kind of beside the point i think. Its called "The O'reilly Factor" for a reason, and i think we all pretty much understand what his guests are going to say anyway, its just sort of hearing Bill rant that most viewers tune in for.

ohio · Mar 13, 2003

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Those have been largely liberal, so at least understand where that comes from.

Your statement implied that there was a correlation between being very liberal and being close-minded... or even that the more strongly you lean in one direction, the more close-minded you are.

That is quite simply wrong. Liberalism and conservatism are issues quite independent of open-mindedness. There are close minded liberals, conservatives, and moderates. Likewise there are open-minded of each.

I find it either extremely insulting or extremely naive that you would assume the latter about me based only on the former.

Damn True · Mar 13, 2003

You must admit though that in general the more extremist one is in their beliefs the less likely they are to respect the opinions of others.

I don't care for O'Reilly that much. Sometimes he is right on, but for the most part there is too much bombast for my taste. He cherry picks a lot of his guests knowing that they are fringe at best and will come across as a bit of crackpot on their own which he then exploits. Not my cup-o-tea.
I prefer Hannity & Colms. They bring on guests who are far better at making convicing points rather than spouting rhetoric. They respect their guests opinions and let them speak even if they are going to pick them apart point by point. And they have Anne Coulter on quite often who is a) brilliant, b)hilarious, c) hot.

Today's Ann:

Liberals Trade Crusading Anger For Hardheaded Realism
March 12, 2003

SINCE NEW competitive media have forced liberals to confront opposing points of view, they seem to have abandoned emotionalism as their main argument. Their new posture is mock hardheaded realism. Liberals flex their spindly little muscles and announce that everything that used to make them cry guns, racial profiling, torturing suspects simply doesn't work: The fact is, it doesn't work, this is according to several studies, and no, you can't see them, why would you ask?

Thus, for example, after decades of womanly hysteria about guns, we started getting statements like this from Fox News Channel's Alan Colmes to Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America: "Let's talk about some hard and cold facts, Larry. The fact of the matter is, Larry, that the odds that a home will be the scene of a homicide are much greater if there's a gun in the home." Soccer moms across America shot up straight at that one and said: I did not know that!

As the inestimable economist John Lott has shown, the study behind this flagrantly dishonest "cold hard fact" assumed that anyone killed by a gun in or near a home where anyone owned a gun was, therefore, killed by "a gun in the home." The study merely attests to the fact that people who live in high-crime neighborhoods tend to own guns. This is like the joke about diets causing people to be fat because most people on diets are fat. Or, as Lott says, on that theory of causation, hospitals must cause people to die because lots of people who die have been hospitalized recently. (Lott exposes dozens of such phony "studies" and shibboleths about guns in his splendid new book, "The Bias Against Guns.")

After 19 nearly identical-looking Muslim men hijacked four airplanes and murdered 3,000 Americans, people weren't in much of a mood for liberal preachiness about racial profiling. So instead of screaming and trying to make Americans feel guilty, liberals took a hardheaded realist approach. Asked if there was anything wrong with ethnic profiling at airports after 9-11, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz said: "Yes, it doesn't work." Other, better ideas, he said, were face-recognition technology and national ID cards. These would work great assuming we know who the terrorists are. But if we knew who the terrorists were, the only plane they'd be boarding would be on its way to Guantanamo.

Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin said that using appearance as a factor in screening airplane passengers "reflects not only poor judgment, but poor law enforcement." Good law enforcement apparently consists of goosing white paraplegics before they fly. On CNN, Juliette Kayyem, from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, assured viewers that "no one is disagreeing with" extra scrutiny for potential terrorists. But profiling "won't work." Al-Qaida, she said, "exists in places from Algeria to Zimbabwe." Since we're in America, wouldn't it be a big help if we could screen out the Americans? Liberals think "it doesn't work" has such a nice ring to it that the patent falsity of what they're saying should not detract from their argument.

After Sen. Teddy Kennedy tried to block federal funding for the government's program to fingerprint and photograph people entering the country from 25 Muslim nations, his sleazy back-door maneuver was defended on Fox News Channel's "O'Reilly Factor" by Sarah Eltantawi of the Muslim Public Affairs Council. Eltantawi said it was a "huge mischaracterization" to think she was going to complain about racial profiling. "That's not the argument I'm here to make." To the contrary, her objection and Kennedy's objection was that fingerprinting and photographing immigrants from terrorist-producing countries is "completely inefficient." And we all know Teddy Kennedy cannot abide inefficiency!

The recent capture of al-Qaida leader Khalid Shaikh Mohammed has led to an epidemic of "it doesn't work" claims with regard to torture. Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker, former legal counsel to the CIA, National Security Agency and State Department, has been quoted as saying, "We don't use torture because it doesn't work." Torture indisputably works when you know you've got the right guy. We know who Mohammed is; we know he has information we want. There may be good and sufficient moral reasons for not torturing people for information, but efficacy is not among them.

It's as if liberals held focus groups on how to best present their ridiculous ideas and were told: Passion you've got! But what respondents say you lack is: intellection, thinking things through, understanding elementary human nature, and a basic awareness of what people are like. If conservatives have not yet persuaded liberals to give up on socialism and treason, we have at least gotten them to fake linear thinking. The next hurdle is substance.

dbisers311 · Mar 13, 2003

In one of her recent books she actually suggested that the united states invade middle eastern countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to christianity. She just a right wing crackpot. Seeing her on Bill Maher's new show made me laugh at her even more.

Silver · Mar 14, 2003

Having Ann Coulter talk about "liberals" (big scary word that it is to some people) is like having Bill Phelps talk about homosexuality, Jerry Falwell about atheism, or the Pope about birth control. I just tune right the fvck out, because I already know what they are going to say. Nothing new or interesting or thought provoking is on the agenda.

The relentless ad hominem attacks from Coulter really get to me. I'd love to see her debate a real liberal, hell, how about Ann Coulter and Noam Chomsky in a debate?

Considering that I've repeatedly seen her arguments get ripped apart by Bill Maher, I don't think she'd be much of a challenge for the MIT professor. She's more telegenic though...

fluff · Mar 14, 2003

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Which is precisely why so many people are so liberal. They own most the airspace.

Can you back that statement up or is it simply conjecture?

I ask because the following article would dispute your claim..

Link - http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,906875,00.html

Liberalism doesn't get a hearing on American radio or television

Matthew Engel in America
Tuesday March 4, 2003
The Guardian

You are white, male, and old enough to vote but probably too young to have been forced into combat. You are most likely somewhere west of New Jersey but east of California. You may well be driving a pick-up truck while imagining it is one of those tank-like things known as Hummers. You are not very well-educated and certainly not well-travelled. You don't harbour doubts. You are the target audience for American talk radio.
De Gaulle wondered how you could govern France when it has 246 kinds of cheese. You might more pertinently wonder how you govern a country like the US that has 13,000 radio stations. The answer is that it's simple, provided they all say the same thing. Of the 1,000 or so commercial stations in the US that actually deal in words rather than music, the overwhelming majority rely on a handful of syndicated hosts, all rightwing, all skilful, all ferocious.

Some of the names are familiar, led by Rush Limbaugh, who defined the genre in the late 1980s and early 1990s and soared to glory the moment Bill Clinton became president and gave him an irresistible target. But Limbaugh, who supposedly reaches 20 million listeners a week, now has many rivals, like G Gordon Liddy (the ex-Watergate burglar-in-chief), Bill O'Reilly (the star of Fox News on TV), Sean Hannity (the only man who can say "I gotta tell you" five times in a single minute) and Michael Savage, who defines liberalism as "Trojan-horse fascism without the jackboots".

There is a sub-genre of family-oriented hosts, whose programmes are aimed more at stay-at-home women. The leaders here are the Christian conservative Dr James Dobson, and the bleak advice-giver, Laura Schlessinger, a doctor unpleasant enough to empty a crowded NHS waiting-room.

Despite all these rivals, Limbaugh has no opponents. Rich pinkos are trying to put together a scheme to start a liberal talk-show, but it is doomed because the essence of liberalism is that it does not deal in the slashing handed-down certainties of the radio shows. More thoughtful people listen instead to the quiet debate of the non-commercial and small-beer PBS stations. Only last week, Phil Donohue, who had been trying to run a much publicised "liberal" TV show in opposition to O'Reilly, was finally euthanased by his bosses at MSNBC after being crushed in the ratings.

Obviously there are consequences of this for the alleged debate over war in Iraq. ("You disagree? Too bad. We're invading.") But in fact the Limbaugh-demographic represents the one group in the US which is unhesitatingly pro-war. And in any case the secret of media influence is far more complex and insidious than is often believed.

It doesn't actually matter which side of the Iraq fence the New York Times leader writers (who have spent months impaling themselves) land on. No one will change their minds as a result. What makes a difference is a slow drip-drip-drip, seeping into the body politic and ultimately flooding it. Neil Kinnock's leadership of the Labour party was destroyed because, over a nine-year period, Britain's top-selling paper, the Sun, successfully portrayed him as an inadequate.

American talk radio's great achievement is more general than that. With individuals, the hosts have not yet had a major success. In spite of everything, they could not quite get rid of Bill and Hillary. They tried to demonise the mild-mannered Tom Daschle, the Democrats' leader in the Senate (the word "demonise" is used advisedly - Limbaugh calls him "El Diablo"), but it was his opposite number, the Republican Trent Lott, who fell. No, the Limbaugh gang's real triumph is altogether more breathtaking, something that makes one want to rewrite the ancient explanation of the Yiddish word chutzpah (traditionally defined as the boy who murders his parents and begs for mercy because he's an orphan).

These guys have taken over the airwaves and persuaded America that the media are dominated by lefties. If that were ever true, it is emphatically untrue now. Radio obviously belongs to the right. So, by default, does TV, because the agenda is set by the White House, and Bush, Rumsfeld, Fleischer etc get massively more exposure to promote their agenda than anyone gets to counter it - especially at a time when there is no clear, credible and confident opposition leader. And the same applies in the newspapers, where the rigid notions that govern mainstream journalism demand "objectivity".

Effectively that means that the front pages are dominated by government assertions, uncritically relayed. Hannity said on his Friday show that three-quarters of Americans believe the left dominate the media. That was a little lie: the poll he quoted showed that 45% believe that and 15% don't, which is not the same thing. The idea itself is a much bigger lie - I gotta tell you

Serial Midget · Mar 15, 2003

Fluff! You ignorant slut... how ya been???

The item you just posted deals with AM radio and cable news channels - these services might be dominated by right wing pander meisters but their overall audience reach is quite small. They are also not widely considered as news programs - in general they are viewed commentary much like the op-ed section of any newspaper. The shows mentioned actually have a very tiny viewing/listener bases. Do a search for cable news ratings - you might be surpised.

Give Tony a kiss for me... he's such a cute little puppy! :thumb:

Serial Midget · Mar 15, 2003

"NBC's "Nightly News" won the evening news ratings race, averaging 11.1 million viewers (7.8 rating, 15 share). ABC's "World News Tonight" was second, averaging 10.7 million viewers (7.5, 15) and the "CBS Evening News' had 8.7 million (6.0, 11)."

News Broadcast Viewer Ratings

"Fox News had an average of 656,000 viewers watching at any time throughout the day in January. CNN averaged 596,000, according to Nielsen Media Research data provided by the networks. The story was largely the same in prime time -- all despite the fact that CNN is available in 9 million more homes than Fox News."

In the same period PBS's News Hour regularly attracts 1.2 million nightly viewers.

O'Riely factor...

Turbo Monkey

I Love Cheap Beer!

Monkey

The Fresno Kid

find me a tampon

Al Bundy

Chimp

Al Bundy

Chimp

Monkey

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

Al Bundy

Don't mess with the Santas

Al Bundy

Don't mess with the Santas

Al Bundy

The Fresno Kid

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

Monkey

The Fresno Kid

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

The Fresno Kid

Don't mess with the Santas

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

The Fresno Kid

The Fresno Kid

find me a tampon

Ranger LL

Al Bundy

Al Bundy

Monkey

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

The Fresno Kid

Monkey Pimp

Chimp

find me a tampon

Monkey Turbo

Al Bundy

Al Bundy