Bill O'Reilly

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Even though I'd generally consider myself to be a liberal, I really can't get worked up about Bill O'Reilly.

He's just a big mouthed talk show host that's taken a bit too seriously by a large amount of people. He lies and blows smoke but I wouldn't say he was a terrible human being or hurting America or responsible for the likes of Bush or anything like that.

 

[JoeEllison]

Even though I'd generally consider myself to be a liberal, I really can't get worked up about Bill O'Reilly.

He's just a big mouthed talk show host that's taken a bit too seriously by a large amount of people. He lies and blows smoke but I wouldn't say he was a terrible human being or hurting America or responsible for the likes of Bush or anything like that.

That's ok... I don't have to get worked up to know he's a rotten SOB.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Bill sums up everything that is wrong with the news today. His argument with 9/11 victim jeremy [something?] i found quite disrespectful, and also his argument with that cub scout was terrible.

 

[hgc]

O'Reilly's best hits in wingnut crackpottery are many. But for my money, it's his new Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which is remarkable for all the big ideas embodied in so few sentences.

There's a very secret plan. And it's a plan that nobody's going to tell you, "Well, we want to diminish Christian philosophy in the U.S.A. because we want X, Y, and Z." They'll never ever say that. But I'm kind of surprised they went after Christmas because it's such an emotional issue.

Now the reason this is happening is because of the ACLU and George Soros, Peter Lewis.

Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, all of them. That's the first step. Get the religion out of there, so that we can impose our big-government, progressive agenda.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48320

It's got the War on Christmas
It's got a Jewish cabal
It's got the ACLU
It's got a secret plan
It's got religion under coordinated attack
It's got a secret plan that only O'Reilly knows about
It's got all the BIG bogeymen (except for Yuri Andropov - forgot him)

 

[Upchurch]

I would appreciate some links to clear demonstrations of O'Reilly's spinning, lying, and overt propaganda to send to my brother's fiance. She seemed open to consideration.

This one has to be my favorite.

 

[shadron]

Stephen Colbert was interviewed on NPR about a month ago. He talked about the time that O'Reilly was on his Colbert's show. He said they had to cut the interview down a bunch for playing on the air because O'Reilly didn't come in his usual demeanor; he came on as Papa Bear, and the interview was boring as hell.

 

[CaptainManacles]

Actually, I saw it in context in it's entirety... and he's repeated it. It is reflective of what he's saying... and tokenconservative seems to agree.

No, as he pointed out, there's clearly nothing wrong with that statement. The only way you can make that out to be something bad is by getting people to read it as "child molestation isn't as bad as having to do chores and go to school" which wasn't what he was saying. Otherwise, who cares?

 

[CaptainManacles]

Interestingly, it is completely in context, and absolutely reflective of what he was saying, as the transcript and video clip show.

Sorry one of your heroes is a terrible human being, but don't blame me for it.

ETA: have you asked him about his Peabody Awards?

He's not one of my heroes, and in fact, I dislike the man. I can, though, keep an objective view of reality about the issue, unlike you.

 

[CaptainManacles]

O'Reilly's best hits in wingnut crackpottery are many. But for my money, it's his new Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which is remarkable for all the big ideas embodied in so few sentences.



http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48320

It's got the War on Christmas
It's got a Jewish cabal
It's got the ACLU
It's got a secret plan
It's got religion under coordinated attack
It's got a secret plan that only O'Reilly knows about
It's got all the BIG bogeymen (except for Yuri Andropov - forgot him)

It's typical Christian "I'm not happy unless I'm crucified" BS. Christianity is under attack, christians are under attack, even if they have a majority and control everything, well, someone not kissing our butts 24/7 or saying one bad thing about us is RERPESSING US, it's WAR they're coming to get us.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

One of my favorite parodies ever

Bill O'Reilly: And now for a look at our Viewer Mail, about a story on overcrowding in kindergarten classrooms.

Janet Miller of Park City, Utah writes: "Bill, normally I'm a fan of 'The Factor's' hard hitting style, but your interview with the five-year old girl about class size was a little too rough. Telling her she was 'out of her mind' was simply uncalled for."

Janet, here at The Factor, we pull no punches, When you come on the show, you gotta know that.

Ed Gekas, Emhurst, Illinois: "Bill, your tough, incisive questions had that five year old girl squirming. The bottom line is, you had the facts. She didn't."

And finally, Paul Jemino of Islip, New York writes: "Bill, even though the girl hurt her case by crying, she was right, and you were wrong. Albany, not New York City, is the capital of New York State."

Well, Paul, I thank you for watching. But I still say New York City is the state capital. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

(take the link for the full transcript)

 

[Schneibster]

ETA:

Otherwise, who cares?

Only people who care about the child in question. Which really ought to be all of us, don't you think? That's called "being a responsible society that takes the welfare of its members into account." Have you ever heard of that?

Can you think of any reason someone would want to be a member of a society that didn't? Or who would not want to change a society they were a member of if it didn't? Or a reason why they should not do so?

 

[Schneibster]

Oh, one additional thing: O'Lielly doesn't, based on what he says, think that a society ought to be concerned with what happens to its members. To my mind, that is a violation of the social contract, and a good reason why I would never care to be a member of a "society" as O'Lielly and those who ride in him conceive of it, and do all I can every day to make the society I live in conform to the principle that since it is composed of me and my peers, it should benefit us.

 

[Upchurch]

No, as he pointed out, there's clearly nothing wrong with that statement. The only way you can make that out to be something bad is by getting people to read it as "child molestation isn't as bad as having to do chores and go to school" which wasn't what he was saying. Otherwise, who cares?

Wow. just ...wow.

O'Reilly showed himself to be uninformed and a moron on at least very important two points in that story. First, in his ignorance, he irresponsibly declared the Stockholm syndrome phony, thus putting at least part of the blame on the victim. In this case, an 11 to 15 year old child.

Second, at the time O'Reilly stuck his foot in his mouth, the subject of Devlin being a child molester had already been brought up by the police. O'Reilly had to know this and still declared that Devlin had made things easy for Hornbeck and that Hornbeck was having more fun with Devlin.

Was O'Reilly intend to say that being molested is more fun than chores and school? I seriously doubt it. Did O'Reilly do what he always does and re-frame the facts of the situation to fit his world view rather than having a world view that reflects the facts? You betcha and then some.

There is a lot wrong with his statement. It is intellectually dishonest on a number of counts. It puts blame on Hornbeck for what Devlin did to him. It is a shameful and hypocritical for a man who makes claims like "I'm looking out for you", "fair and balanced", and "culture warrior".

 

[KingMerv00]

I hate Bill for using "secularist" as a slur.

 

[Upchurch]

It's typical Christian "I'm not happy unless I'm crucified" BS. Christianity is under attack, christians are under attack, even if they have a majority and control everything, well, someone not kissing our butts 24/7 or saying one bad thing about us is RERPESSING US, it's WAR they're coming to get us.

Yes, it is BS that BO not only buys into, but actively promotes. Not only does he do it for Christianity, but also conservatism, his brand of traditionalism*, and his brand of American history*.






* not to be confused with the real thing

 

[CaptainManacles]

ETA:

Only people who care about the child in question. Which really ought to be all of us, don't you think? That's called "being a responsible society that takes the welfare of its members into account." Have you ever heard of that?

Can you think of any reason someone would want to be a member of a society that didn't? Or who would not want to change a society they were a member of if it didn't? Or a reason why they should not do so?

The irony is that you argue like Bill Oreilly. "If you don't agree with me then you hate the children" Without actually providing a sliver of reasoning.

 

[CaptainManacles]

Yes, it is BS that BO not only buys into, but actively promotes. Not only does he do it for Christianity, but also conservatism, his brand of traditionalism*, and his brand of American history*.






* not to be confused with the real thing

No doubt

 

[CaptainManacles]

Wow. just ...wow.

O'Reilly showed himself to be uninformed and a moron on at least very important two points in that story. First, in his ignorance, he irresponsibly declared the Stockholm syndrome phony

No he didn't.

Second, at the time O'Reilly stuck his foot in his mouth, the subject of Devlin being a child molester had already been brought up by the police. O'Reilly had to know this and still declared that Devlin had made things easy for Hornbeck and that Hornbeck was having more fun with Devlin.

And two people have already pointed out why this is an incredibly misleading statement.

Was O'Reilly intend to say that being molested is more fun than chores and school? I seriously doubt it. Did O'Reilly do what he always does and re-frame the facts of the situation to fit his world view rather than having a world view that reflects the facts? You betcha and then some.

which doesn't come across in that out of context quote at all. Plus, you haven't really demonstrated any of those things.

 

[Praktik]

my two cents:

I have an enduring fascination with all things conservative, mainly because for the most part - I disagree with them completely.

I watch OReilly, maybe once or twice a week while I make dinner and then eat my dinner.

And I will say that he makes for good TV, even if for half his audience, they want to throw a brick at him!

I think thats part of the attraction. But really - no one can deny that his "shouting down" someone almost every episode is the farthest thing from a reasonable discussion. OReilly picks topics to get people riled up, and then invites the weakest apologists for whats portrayed (sometimes truthfully - sometimes stretched to appear) as an untenable position so he can look like the noble hero fighting "the good fight".

Its staged theatre - almost like political WWE - and the script is wrriten beforehand (just like the WWE) so that the winner is predetermined.

I dont think in all my hours of viewing I have ever really seen Oreilly Capitulate. But I have seen his capillaries come close to bursting on the regular...

 

[fuelair]

I don't do links--LIIIIIINNKKKKKSSSSS!!!--but IMAEHO, he strikes me as a bit of a phony on the personal side, who nevertheless is typically spot-on with his reporting/commentary on events.

Colbert, actually, was invented by the left BECAUSE of guys like O'Reilly, and Limbaugh.

No...not because they act like this, but because O'Reilly and Limbaugh (and every other national and most local conservative yakkers) have to have their ducks lined up in very tight formation before they open their mouths.

This is what, to the left, requires a Colbert: someone they can say "see! SEEEEE!!!?? He's SO just like these conservatives: always wrong, sticking his foot in his mouth, stupid as a brick, etc., etc."

In actual fact, while yes, you can nit-pick anyone like O'Reilly or Limbaugh to death (sexual harasment!! Drug addiction!!!) due to the very nature of their business: you put out tens of thousands of words a day over 15-30 years and it would be surprising indeed if you did not occasionally stumble over a word, or even get some facts wrong. Remember what they tried with Coulter when she misidentified the father as the grandfater (or other way 'round?) of a minor personage in her book about socialists and communists deep in the American government...this was a LIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEE!!! It was the only thing they could find to attack in the whole book, and it was front page, above the fold news that Coulter had LIIIIIEDDDDDDDDDD!!! on this very important issue.

Same with conservative yakker-commentators like O'Reilly. Has he ever (oh, the humanity!) put his foot in it (ever see that interview with that beauty queen who had some rather innocent photos online? Sheeesh...you wanted to reach through the screen, slap O'Reilly and tell him to stop acting like a dirty old man!) or gotten a fact or three wrong.

Um...yeah. So? Does that mean that ON BALANCE he is WROOOONGGGGGGGG!!! Or a LIIIIAAARRRRRRRRRR!!!!

Um..no, it does mean he's a human.

Gee, go figger.

Tokie

That's why Olbermann has so much fun with him - he commits those little foibles that make him human pretty much daily. Either he is wrong way too much for tV Infotainment or he is a congenital A)liar or B)idiot or C) both.