Here Today... Gone To Hell!

That was awesome. They ate that asshole alive.

Oh....man I must check my tivo.

Donahue just recently tore O'reilly a new one too. OR was fuming by the end of it.

Edit: Just watched it.

Best quote:

"I do add insult to injury" says Stewart.

"An honest man" says OR

"But you add injury."   :hihi:

The guy is too funny.

i wish i would have seen it. that's battle of the titans right there.

donahue tore o'reilly a new one??? come on, they couldn't even have an intelligent discussion cause donahue was trying to say bush is behind the 9/11 attacks! and you're trying to say HE won that debate. unbelievable.

I wish I saw the debate.  Sorry guys, but I don't consider you two the most neutral of sources to determine who one the debate.  SLC, you think OReilly is evil, and you worship the ground Stewart walks on.  Hardly a neutral party.

yeah
i saw that one, so glad i am in the us now, cause we dont get comedy central in france :(

the Colbert Report kicks ass too :)

for anyone who saw it, did it seem like there was a mutual respect between the two of them?

they did crack some jokes on each other
but i felt it was pretty much set up and .... the tension was more like fun and playful than really hatred ... i mean they ARE adults so ....

and i felt that (from the people that watched it with me, mostly girls - im staying with my g/f and her 3 room mates... - , some rep. some dem.) people in the US give to much credit and attention to TV / Media people.
its like the  media is more important than the actual subject.

bill o reilly did trash the FRENCH a little ... but again, as it's in the context of the daily show i didnt care and took it as a joke.

ps: and the commercials !!! god, ive been here for 2 weeks im already sick of them :)

That is not true, Donahue never said this. Quite watching Hannity or whatever it is that are giving you these ideas.  He did let OR have it though.


OR is an angry windbag and that is all he does. Stewart on the other hand is intelligent, funny, and attacks with both of those, while never using anger. It was my opinion anyway. I doubt anybody could be a match for Stewart, he's about as sharp as they come.


Kind of. I think they tried to keep it mellow. Stewart (unlike OR and others) will not trash talk guests when they come on. Not his style, which is another reason I like him so much. He's had guys on there that he totally disagrees with and while he may jab them (with humor) he won't trash talk them. Going on crossfire was something else entirely, although he still used humor, since it was not his show. I'd note that he whipped on both of those guys too (left and right) on that show,not just the right.


He trashed the French from the moment he walked out. What I like was when Stewart leaned in and said "You know we didn't find any WMD" and then OR said "The French aren't our friends!" LOL, reminds me of how a few guys around here answer that claim (ie, change suject fast.)

Stewart definitely "won" the exchange...but, then again...it was Stewarts show, after all.

Some of the banter did seem a bit staged (OK, more than a bit...at least "topic-ed", if you know what I mean).

It was funny as hell, though.

Edit: Looking for the video to try to post a link....I know it's out there...I came across this on google and thought it was funny:
http://www.boingboing.net/2004/09/27/daily_show_viewers_s.html
http://www.boston.com/ae/tv/articles/2004/09/27/so_who_are_the_stoned_slackers_watching_jon_stewart/

Edit 2: Can't find the video, itself, but isohunt.com has the whole show out there.? Just do a search for "The Daily Show" and you'll get tons of torrents.

someone please point out an example of bill o'reilly "trash talk" a guest. i never see it, although i do not watch regularly. and he always gives his guests the last word.

in fact, when he had rosie o'donnell on there, he pracatically kissed her ass.

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/videos/most_recent/index.jhtml

It's on the Comedy Central website now.

Are you serious?

You can't be serious.

If he disagrees with people he tells them to shut up, cuts their mic, yells, screams.....he's an ass. Trash talk.

In fact his comments mirror you guys 100 percent.

http://cdn.moveon.org/data/ShutUp_Final_BbandLo.mov

I used to be a big fan of O'Reilly but now I find him too preachy.? I don't need him or anyone else getting on TV telling me what I should do with my life.? That being said, he brings a point of view to the table that is virtually unseen on television.? I'd rather have O'Reilly telling someone to shut up then completely silencing the opposition by not giving them any air time at all.?

SLC, you're right.? In many way some of the conservatives are like O'Reilly.? We let the left speak their mind, but when they pull wacko theories out their ass, exagerate the truth and plain out provide false information we call them on it.? You and some of your counter parts on the other hand exemplify the liberal media.? You make up stories (Read Dan Rather) and take every chance you have to silence the opposition by having their voices not heard at all (Read advocating banning someone because you disagree with them and distort or misquote them to make them look racist.)

Stewart kicks motherfuckin ass. I love his show.

Be quite Frenchy!

You are an enemy to the USA!



(http://tinypic.com/ern4fm.jpg)

Yea wacko theories like:

"No WMD"

and

"How many more kids are we going to let die in Iraq"

Totally radical!  ::)


Here is another wacko "theory" for you: The investigation for the CIA leak case is getting ready to hit the fan. They are looking at Chenney's office and so far two insiders are considered to be working with the investigation as we speak. Rove's lawyers are no longer saying he won't be charged at this point.

Outing a CIA official is treason.

How is that for wacky?

Back to the matter at hand... thank you.

I think it was nice to see him on the Daily Show. Though I do think they could've actually talked longer. Every time they were heading toward an argument. O'Reilly started to raise his voice a bit, and it was cut short. Or at least that's what it seemed to me. He did come out as a very strange man with very strange views though.

U guys are so biased

O Reilly crushed Donahue

I havent seen the Stewart episode but U all are really bias if u think Donahue did in O Reilly.

O Reilly made Donahue look like a clown.

Stewart is funny as hell, even if you don't agree with him.

But Stewart is a comedian, O'Reilly is a journalist. Difference.


Donahue was practicly foaming at the mouth, he made no sense. He just went on the attack without backing himself up, he looked silly. O'Reilly got heated too, but at least there was some logic involved with his reasoning.

Nobody was trying to paint Stewart as journalist. But rather saying that OR was no match for his quick wit. Also, I would not consider OR a journalist. Tabloid at best. OR talks about the news...he gives opinions and then brings other people on to talk about it. He does not report the news.

And give me an idea of how Donahue was "foaming at the mouth". Not once did he raise his voice, while OR was yelling and threatened to boot him off the show. Donahue made the same points he always has: People on both sides were to blame for the war, that is was a screwup, that Sheehan had the right to protest etc etc. Hardly foaming at the mouth.

OR on the other hand, insuiated that Donahue was attacking his nephew (which he was not) yelled at Donahue, and called names. Much like Charity Case or Pops. Nothing really new for him.

You don't have to be in the US to watch the Daily Show. You can get a high res' version of it right after the show, or the day after, on several torrent sites. Oh, and of course they're commercial free. :)

Maybe we weren't watching the same interview. Donahue was pretty much yelling at O'Reilly.

 I never said Stewart reports the news, just making light he is a comedian, not a journalist. Therefore he does not report the news, I agree with you there.

There is only one interview that I was aware of, maybe there is another meeting.

What I saw was a man who asked the same questions as he always had and another man who yelled and acted like an ass.

I know you didn't say he reports the news. But you did make sure to point out the difference. People just don't do that for no reason.

The Donahue interview I watched is the one where O Reilly told him that his nephew just enlisted into the army and O Reilly told Donahue that he was gonna boot him off the set.


To me O Reilly OWNED Donahue on that show.

I do have an O Reilly biased though, so really there is no right or wrong here.

the liberals will believe Donahue or Stewart won

the Conservatives or middle of the roads like myself will more than likely side with O Reilly


Of course I also Love Bill Maher and I do like Jon stewart and I love how he gave it to that CNN goofball that time.

I havent watched the O Reilly/Stewart battle so I cant comment however I feel O Reilly knocked out Donahue.

Define owned?

By changing the subject?

Trying to appeal to the audience that Donahue was attacking his nephew's honor? (which he was not)

By yelling at his guest?

By threatening to boot him off the show?

By avoiding the subject at hand and making "in the future" predictions and claims?

If that is what you mean by "owned" then sure...OR won. But a debate is not supposed to be similar to a wrestling match.

Um, you can actually see an example of it when you look at the links I provided as amusement.

When Stewart showed up on O'Reilly Factor, he called Daily Show watchers something like "a bunch of stoned slackers".  Sounds like trash talk to me....

Edit:

Never mind..Skeba asked us to bring it back on topic...

It was way too short I thought.

I don't watch much TV and I don't watch OR in general, but I saw the clip of this online and I agree. Donahue basically self-destructed by supporting the guy who blamed Bush for 9/11.

Of course, more lies.

Donahue told OR that he was not going to be pushed around like Glick.

yes, but i asked for an example of when he trash talked a guest. your example is from him appearing on someone else's show.

and that propaganda slc posted conveniently slices second-long clips together to avoid providing proper perspective. in fact, the "shut up" clip was used by david letterman to make him look bad. (it was hilarious). but the actual quote was from o'reilly quoting someone else (he said something like, "they are telling us - 'just shut up'".

so if anyone has a TRUE example, please let me know. i'm not even looking for a link, i'll take anybody's word if they remember a specific example. i'm sure his critics on the left can point out many.

The instance they are talkin bout Sandman is when a guy was on there and tried to say Bush was responsible for 9/11 or something and O Reilly told the guy to shut up or he was gonna boot him off the show.


O Reilly interrupts guest that are tryin to spin or lie or mislead.



Donahue looked like a fool when O Reilly was finished with him. I dont remember the logistics of the entire conversation but I remember watching it thinking *Donahue looks like a dumbass*


Someone emailed O reilly tonight and told him that he destroyed Stewart on the Daily Show.

O reilly said he didnt and that he and Jon have a great give and take debate everytime.

SLC let me ask u this, do u support the Dallas morning news and what they said about O Reilly causing 6 Mexicans to get killed in Georgia?

didn't Donahuehave a talk show like Opra?

He is the grand daddy of talk shows.

It's not propaganda. It's OR saying he never says shut up, then OR telling everybody to shut up.  :hihi: He never said "I never tell anybody to shutup under these circumstances only."

What evidence do you want? Watch his show...he does it all the time.

Watch the clip with Glick, he tells him to shut up a couple of times. He threatens to kick him off the show. Watch the clip with Phil, he threatened to kick him off the show.

gotcha. so basically he interrupts people that are telling lies, or giving radical statements with no facts. i would expect ALL hosts to act that way.

donahue took a cheap shot at o'reilly's family. bill's cousin or nephew signed up for iraq, and phil made light of it. (typical radical disrespecting the troops.) o'reilly took offense and let phil know.

also, phil was purposely disrespecting him by calling him "billy". basically acting like a 4-year-old on national tv. if his arguments were strong and intelligent, he wouldn't resort to these measures.

glick accuses bush of orchestrating 9/11, and as i've pointed out, phil disrespected bill's family. i would expect anyone to step up and let their guests know that's not acceptable.

by the way, OR has been on for 9 years. and he's dominated the ratings for years. he's doing something right. and they say he's just like stern.....those who hate him watch him the most.  :hihi:

Or when he is wrong, or when he does not like what he hears.

O R interupts people who have opinions. What that kid felt (after his father died on 9-11) is what he said. He said that the American government trained AQ and is who eventually attacked us on 9-11. Nowhere did he claim that Bush was behind 9-11.
"
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. "

Both you guys claim Phil and Glick claimed Bush was responsible for 9-11. Both NOT TRUE.

What is true is that we set up and create these monsters in the middle east to suit our needs Osama, and Saddam included. And now one has attacked us while the other continued to be a dictator.


Know your shit before you type.

And Phil did not disrespect OR family, another lie. During the interview OR blurted that out to appear as such:

O'REILLY (very angry, pointing): My nephew just enlisted in the Army. You don't know what the hell you're talkin' about!!!

DONAHUE: Very good. Very good. Congratulations! You should be proud ..

O'REILLY (starts to lose it, shouting, pointing finger, hand shaking): And he's a patriot, so don't denigrate his service or I'll boot you right off the set!!!

DONAHUE: I'm not ... I'm not ...

I heard it to, it wasn't even close.  Anyone that thought Donahue handed it to Oreilly obviously heard just what they wanted to hear. 

The exchange between O?Reilly and Stewart was friendly, but their was some underling tension. Stewart didn?t even have to say anything really, because O?Reilly made such an ass of himself on his own. Saying things like ?you have some Frenchie on after me? referring to Colbert. And saying Stewert ?buys into leftist propaganda,? to which Stewart just chuckled. The audience was polite, but did applaud when O?Reilly said he may go into retirement, to which Stewart told his audience to stop. ?

O?Reilly also said he is still boycotting the French, because they didn?t support us in the invasion of Iraq and, after all, we saved them in WWII. Someone should tell O?Reilly (1) China, Russia and Germany also opposed the war and (2) no WMD were ever found.

O?Reilly is like a modern day Joe McCarthy, but without political power. He just pulls baseless statements out of his ass that are, often untrue. It?s really really sad that a scumbag like that can reach millions of people everyday that eat up everything he says

You had better believe it.

Here is a great clip of OR in action. There he is commenting on the "shut up" clip that Sandman said was propaganda. They, then turn around and use the entire clip to show the OR is lying about his original lie. It doesn't get any better than that.

The people shown talking about inside memos from Fox are producer, reporters and journalists who left fox and agreed to be interviewed by outfoxed for their fantastic movie.

http://www.outfoxed.org/clips_oreilly_lies_qt.php

"OutFoxed" is great.

The inside memo for the day was amazing to me. That it could be such blatant propaganda...

Watch that clip...it's really good.

Comparing O'Reilly to Mc Carthy is laughable, no connection. Did McCarthy offer both sides of the story?

You should watch Fox news sometime & see for yourself.

Read what I wrote.? Read it again.? One more time.

Maybe THIS part:
"When Stewart showed up on O'Reilly Factor, he [edit: Meaning OR] called Daily Show watchers something like "a bunch of stoned slackers".? Sounds like trash talk to me...."

That was back in late Sept '04 on the O'Reilly factor.?Stewart was a guest.  One of the links I provided previously specifically references the appearance.

Well.....that would really be Merv Griffin.  ;D

LOL.

That was funny.

France is the enemy! Forget the terrorism and natural disasters in the world, go after France!




/jarmo

Bill got smoked!  It was great, especially the "I don't know if you've heard this but they didn't find WMD?" 

1. it's not actually trashing his guest (rather his fans).
2. it's a tongue in cheek comment (and you know that).

How is saying your guest only appeals to a bunch of stoned slackers not trashing him?

 ::)

The classic "It was only a joke"  defense. 

You asked for an example of trash talking, you got it.  If you'd like to bury your head in the sand and ignore it...hey, more power to you.

But you got what you asked for....

hahaha, did O'reilly? :hihi:

Nope!

fair enough.

its just i've heard him say that so many times, i don't take it as seriously as JS's fans do. i think its an assumption that if you have a couple million viewers every night, you have all types of fans. even o'reilly appeals to plenty of stoners, and he knows that.

I'm not really a JS fan either...not that I'm NOT a fan, but..well...the Daily Show is well past my bedtime. :)  I'm out the door by 6 AM, and have 2 very young kids.  Sleep is sorta precious.

Just because I actually finally found it, and it adds context to it, here's an exact quote (from O'Reilly to Stewart):

"You know what?s really frightening?? O?Reilly said. ?You actually have an influence on this presidential election. That is scary, but it?s true. You?ve got stoned slackers watching your dopey show every night and they can vote.?

He continued, through out the show, to call Stewarts audience a bunch of stoned slackers.

thanks for the quote. funny stuff actually.  :hihi:

Much of Stewart's show is satire and jokes.  Similar to the Tonight Show where they take things out of context and put words in peoples mouths for humor.  Yet, some people take these shows as the absolute truth.  Stewart is a comedian; he is not trying to give his analysis on news events.  Yet, as we find constantly with the people citing Moore's F-911 as a source, people believe these things and form their opinions based on them.

While many recognize the intellect in Steward and realize what he does, many don't.  You definately get more "dopey" people watching the comedy channel than you do cnn or fox news.

To hell with O'Rielly, I would much rather be a "stoned slacker" and watch the Daily Show than to be some dumbass redneck that thinks ol' Bill can walk on water.  Being stoned goes away, being a dumbass lasts a lifetime!

O'Reilly has much broader appeal than stupid rednecks, just as Stewart has broader appeal than rednecks. Don't fool yourself.


I actually think O'Reilly is often right on in his analysis of certain issues.  I must say though, I had to travel to work today and listened to his radio show and it was appalling.  Whenever he tries to discuss the Supreme Court or the Constitution he falls on his face.  He didn't have a clue what he was talking about, and whenever someone called him out on it he changed the issue or cut them off.  I would have loved to get into a dialogue with him about it.

If Joesph Georbles were alive today, and living in the US, he'd be running FOX "News."

Do yourself a favor and rent "Outfoxed."

He often does not know what he is talking about.

When he made that comment about Stewarts base being a bunch of "stoners, slackers" (whatever) A study was done to see how that worked out (I'm not making this up). The people who watched Stewart were more likely to be college educated and know more about international affairs then those who watched OR. When presented to OR (here's the great part) he said "Oh what? You can't take a little joke about what I said?"

LOL, sound familiar?

Funny thing is...Stewart made the exact same point when he went on O'Reilly.  He's not trying to do political commentary.  He's trying to do political COMEDY.

As for more "dopey" people watching the comedy channel than cnn....take a look at the links I provided above.  It's actually not true.  According to the data, Stewarts audience is actually less "dopey" than O'Reilly's.  I found those numbers pretty funny....

Have you ever watched his show?

With any given topic typically he has 2 guests, each with an opposing viewpoint on the topic.

Which offers both sides of the story and  the audience can decide for themselves.

Of course I have. That is why anybody who claims he is "fair and balanced" is as big a farce as O'reilly himself.

Nice...You resort to name calling when confronted with a solid arguement since you can't back yourself up.

oh come on kids !

don't you understand that fighting is useless ?
cause in the end the hottest and happiestwins.

so i win.

:)

ps: bill o reilly is indeed a clown.

Fighting is useless, I agree. We should pass out some Prozac around here.  :hihi:

Solid?

What?

You believing the crap you watch on that Fox and reporting back to me?

That's "solid"?

Sure......

Read more.............please.

http://soundamerica.com/sounds/comedy/Monty_Python/A-L/french.wav

the thing that's great about bill is that the people that supposedly hate him, talk about him more than his fans.

it's hilarious....everyone in this thread that hates him, still watches him enough to know how he acts on TV all the time.

i kinda feel like "pig vomit" from the stern movie...."if you hate him, why do you watch?"

he must be doing something right.

why do people wathc wrestling ? oily musuclar men in the underwear rubbing and touching each other....

ps (+ 1 Hidden) : you're french !

i don't watch wrestling, but maybe it has something to do with this....

http://www.wwe.com/superstars/divas/

sort of something for everyone, i guess.

I don't watch his show. I see him from time to time on--like in "Outfoxed" or Jon Stewart. But I would NEVER sit down and watch his show. I rather put my nads on a 2x4 and have someone smash them with a hammer.

About this episode of the Daily Show. I watched the torrented version of it. I was actually disappointed. The bit with O'Reilly lasted for like what, 5 minutes, if even. It was like when you go see a movie everyone tells you it's great and after you're like: "yeah it was ok". Don't get me wrong, the bit was funny, but O'Reilly did his typical narrow minded bullshit, Stewart was hilarious as usual but he seemed to be a bit uneasy to attack him too much. Colbert was hilarious at the end with his Poppa Bear shit...lol I thought the beginning of the show was excellent with the US/ China discussions.

O'Reilly is such a clown. I was just rolling my eyes all over the place with his anti-French non sense. Yeah right they're our enemies. Give me a fuckin break asshole. "Are you people from Marseille?" How lame is this guy? He should retire already.

You'll watch Outfoxed but not O'Reilly's show? Thats like getting the news from the Enquirer and refusing to read the newspaper.

I watched his show many times, because I don't like to criticize what I don't know. To me it was just crap coming out of the TV. I don't even understand how can some people can consider this shit "news". Give me a break. The guy says on national TV that he and his show are boycotting a country (i.e France) because they disagree with the US on the War On Terror (hello, you don't boycott Saudi Arabia? oh yeah, that's right 15 out of the 19 guys who crushed into the Twin Towers were French clowns with berets and baguettes), and people believe that shit. To each his own. If that helps them feel good about their country and/ or their government and what they believe in, good for them.

Now you know how it feels when people compare Bush to Hitler, say the US went to war for oil etc etc etc.

It is not fun seeing your country misportrayed.

Nice Berkeley!


I like how people talk shit about O Reilly but take everything Jon Stewart or Bill Maher says to heart.

Isnt that kinda doing the same thing as people who take O Reilly to heart?

I like Bill O Reilly because he uses his forum to get things done at least.

What positive impact has Bill Maher or Jon Stewart ever had?


What people dont realize is, Bill Maher and Jon Stewart are comedians, they talk shit about Bush cause he is the president but these guys are similiar to Jay Leno,David Letterman and people like that.

It doesnt matter WHO the president is, these guys will rip apart the president because they are Comedians and thats what they do.


Jay Leno use to destroy Clinton everynight, now he does it to Bush.

when a new president is elected u will see the same thing from Maher,Stewart,Leno etc cause that gets ratings.

Equating O'Reilly to "the newspaper" has to be the single funniest post in this thread.

I think it's stupid to compare Bush to Hitler and the other one is a theory among many about the war.

But the thing is, at least here in Sweden, we don't have a guy on tv telling everybody to boycott and hate USA week after week because of the war.

I've never seen the shows but all this anti-France bullshit is lame. I remember the Freedom Fries. It's like they chose one country to hate but they can't seem to understand that a lot of other countries share the views of the French on the war.

I don't like your president, but that doesn't mean I hate everything about your country. This guy doesn't like the French foreign policy and also seems to take it out on all of France.

What's next? He starts going on about how USA needs to return the Statue Of Liberty? Because after all, you don't need anything from France....  ;)




/jarmo

I knew the feeling already, and I get slapped in the face twice because I feel as French as American, and some stupid people in France hate America and some stupid people in the US hate France. It's just the "cool" thing to do now. I still think it's unbelievable that an "important" TV anchor would tell his viewers to boycott a country on national TV. I find it funny that no one ever replies about Saudi Arabia.

Did French people tore down the Twin Towers? Do French people cut Americans heads off for television? Do French people blow themselves up because they hate everything America stands for? Do French people launch fatwas against America all over the world? Nope, nope and fuckin nope. So leave us the fuck alone already. Get off our fuckin back.

If you believe what O'Reilly and the other clowns are saying I'm sorry for you, maybe it makes these people feel better to find a scapegoat. "We can't find Osama. Whatever, the French suck! Let's boycott their wine and not come back to Paris on vacation, ever. Hey, how about Riyah (Saudi Arabia)? That sounds like a cool place, at least THEY don't hate us!"

bill o'reilly is not an "anchor". he has a political commentary show. he gets paid alot of money to lead discussions of the hot topics of the day and to give his opinions.

also, i think his point about France has been missed. it's a boycott of French goods and services to put pressure on France. the reason is NOT because French politicians DISAGREE with the U.S., but because Bill believes they are hurting our war against terrorism.

there are terrorist groups in france that want to kill americans only. the U.S. has asked chirac to designate them as terrorist organizations (which would prevent them from raising funds in Europe). and chirac REFUSES. does that make any sense???

it's very similar to the protests against the war. we have the freedom to protest against whatever we like. but this does not mean he is promoting hate against the french people.   

I'm just thinking terrorist fundings from Saudi Arabia happen to hurt the US a lot more than what anti-French focused people think. But that's a subject that is often avoided. Easier to start the Freedom Fries shit.

Could you give us a link about what you're saying with those terrorists in France and what Chirac did? I have not read it in recent news, I guess I missed it. I'm not saying I don't believe you (Chirac is such an asshole, I wouldn't be surprised), but I prefer to read it for myself.

So when O'Reilly a/k/a Poppa Bear is saying France is "our real enemy", that's not something that's promoting hate against the French people? It's funny how right wing people see the world. And of course O'Reilly is not biased. Just like Moore. Or Franken.

Do you know why he refuses? I'm curious because I think he must have a reason...


I remember reading about some people from Somalia who live in Sweden that were branded terrorists by the USA. I don't remember the details but I think they had collected money for somebody/something.



/jarmo

the terror group is Hezbollah.

Chirac stated the timing was not right.



http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43129

Hezbollah: We'll be 'destroyed' if added to terror list
Violent Lebanese group fears request for EU sanctions

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 3, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Aaron Klein
? 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

If the European Union follows Israeli recommendations this week and places Hezbollah on a list of official terror organizations, the economic consequences of sanctions would "destroy" the Lebanese terror group, Hezbollah's leader told Arabic language television.

Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom Monday called on the European Union to add Hezbollah to its list of terrorist groups ? a step Europe so far has been reluctant to take. The request follows a suicide bombing Friday in Tel Aviv that Israel says was directed by Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad with funding and assistance from Syria.

Shalom said he reiterated the long-standing Israeli request regarding Hezbollah during a meeting this week with his Belgian counterpart, Karel De Gucht, and will express the Jewish state's concerns to other EU members.

Shalom told reporters Hezbollah operates dozens of terror cells, directs a group of Palestinian terrorists and offers millions of dollars in assistance to West Bank militants.

"We see they make every effort to sabotage progress in the peace process," Shalom said.

The United States also has attempted to persuade the EU to list Hezbollah as a terrorist group.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said European blacklisting would "destroy" his group.

Designating Hezbollah a terror group in Europe will mean "the sources of [our] funding will dry up and the sources of moral, political and material support will be destroyed," Nasrallah told Al Manar, Hezbollah's satellite television station.

"The political option [used by the Israelis], which is more important and dangerous, is manifested by the Israeli-Zionist unceasing efforts to lay siege to [Hezbollah] in Lebanon and in the future in Palestine and globally, internationally, regionally and even locally in Lebanon. That is the most dangerous challenge we have had to face during the past few years, and we stand firm today and will stand firm in the future," said Nasrallah.

France has already responded to Israel's Hezbollah request, with French President Jacques Chirac claiming the timing was not right for such a move.

Israeli officials told reporters the French are aware of the information linking Hezbollah to terrorism, but they are now allegedly focusing their efforts on the civil uprising in Lebanon and say they don't want to risk harming relations with the group.

France's objections are considered the main obstacle to the EU approving the move to add Hezbollah to the terror list.

Israel this week also launched a major diplomatic offensive lobbying for increased international isolation of Syria. Military intelligence chiefs in Jerusalem met several foreign ambassadors, mostly from European countries, to present information linking Syria to the Tel Aviv bombing. Presentations are also scheduled for Washington, London and Paris.

"What we are doing is trying in every capital of the world ... to show them the direct links from Syria to Islamic Jihad, which has a direct connection to what we saw on Friday evening in Tel Aviv," said Ron Prosor, a spokesman for Israel's Foreign Ministry.

WorldNetDaily? Are other press sources reporting it as well (ie. AP, Reuters, Washington Post, NYT, etc.)?

are you implying you don't believe it?

I believe it - because Chirac can be dumb sometimes, I'm just asking for more sources I usually rely upon. WND is not one of them - that's no offense or anything, because I saw they report AP news too.

Oh please. FOX News is basically a right-winged enquirer. ?Outfoxed? is a documentarily. And I do recommend it, it could open your mind to what FOX News really is

I think I'll pass.  I bet you also thought Fahrenheit 911 opened up a lot of minds.

Yup.

I dont take anyone seriously that believes everything Micheal Moore says.

Lets say for a minute that O reilly is right wing garbage, Left wingers bash people who like O Reilly but yet believe every single thing Left Wing propagandist spew.

So a huge hypocrisy there.

I agree with about 60 percent of O Reilly but I like him cause of his opinions and his passion.

Ill take a guy who believes in what he is saying whether I agree with him or not, over someone who forms opinions based on other people's opinions.

The reason I think Fox News seem so Right Wing is because every other news agency is Left Wing, so when Fox criticizes the Left it makes them look more conservative mainly cause all the Left Wing news organizations dont.


But even if Fox is Right Wing, who cares?? I mean CNN is Left,ABC,CBS,NBC all are left wing news agencies, so whats the big deal?

90 percent of the time u see people with opposing sides debating on O Reilly. I think that is about as fair and balanced as u can get of course no one is perfect.

You are generalizing ?left-wingers? here. A lot of people hate Bill O?Reilly, and one hundred percent of them do not back Michael Moore 100 percent of the time.

Let?s examine this sentence: 

?I?ll take a guy who believes in what he is saying whether I agree with him or not over someone who forms opinions based on other people's opinions??

Does that mean you will side with Adof Hitler? After all, he was ?passionate? and ?believed what he was saying.?

I always hear "left wing bias" in our media, but see nothing more than Fox pointing and saying "left wing bias". Sure there is bias on either side. But the claim that there is a "left wing bias" (overall in our media) is a scare tactic at best. It's an "around the dinner table topic" to get people upset. It's what Bush based his entire election on....gay marriage, the supposed attack on Christainity in this country...blah blah blah. People sit around and talk at the dinner table...."They are attacking our religion, trying to brainwash our kids in school with liberal agenda, even the media is liberal...."

BOO! Big boogie man coming to get you....(yet when asked I never get a good answer, just "it's so" type responses)

Just like they say "fair and balanced". In reality it is they report....you repeat. Nothing said here has not already been droned out by OR over an over. You just repeat it because he says so. Nobody was crying about "liberal professors, " or "liberal media" a few years back. Not until OR and others like him say it over and over for the sheepish to take in and repeat.

Please show us examples of Left wing bias in the media. I was once told that the extensive coverage of Bill Clintons BJ was actually left wing Bias, which I found utterly stupid. But alas, you believe what you will......

I think Fox saw an opening in the marketplace and have capitalized greatly. No one attacks the news from the angle fox does and they have the highest ratings of any cable news. Who ever thought CNN would be knocked out, I sure didnt.


Richard Nixon u are totally twisting everything around.

If u dont believe everything Micheal Moore says then u dont apply, I never said all left wingers believed him verbatim but there are those who think everything in his documentaries are 100 percent fact and they arent.

its about 50/50, he has some truth with fiction around it but because its based on an element of truth it appears to be so.


Dont put Bill O Reilly and Adolf Hitler in the same sentence, there is a huge difference in supporting someone like O Reilly for his opinions and supporting someone like Adolf Hitler, I mean were u actually serious when u said that?


Ill give u one Huge Example of bias in the Media SLC and that bias really helped cost Kerry the election.

CBS News and their fake ass report on George Bush.

OK, let me get this straight.

Dan Rather runs a story with bad sources and that means "liberal bias". But if the President of the United States goes to war with bad sources that is then "bad intelligence" and the Prez should not be held accountable. ( Ironically, the fake docs were still true...Bush was given special treament in the national gaurd.)

Either way, that doesn't really represent the "liberal media" out to brainwash everybody. You guys claim the media is "liberal", give me more than one example. Show me, overall that the media is liberal.

This could be because:
1) There really was no media bias
OR
2) You just didn't hear about it because the left had a monopoly on media and academia

And does anybody else find it ironic the same guy who posts conspiracy theories about why the US invaded Iraq, is whining about the right allegedly using using cries of "left wing bias" as a "scare tactic"? :hihi:? pot ... kettle ...

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005312

Now, I know the intellectually blind will simply dismiss this because it comes from a conservative source. But I'm posting it anyway for people who do actually consider evidence from opposing view points.

My point was it is stupid to believe and or follow someone because they ?believe in what they are saying.?

This ?liberal bias? is pure crap. When the US invaded Iraq, all four networks and most papers supported Bush and the war and didn?t ask any hardball questions.

Wow...so people who don't rely upon conservative sources or doubt their articles are "intellectually blind". I don't know why you guy always have to use that kind of low level remarks to put yourself above the rest. I guess it makes you feel better. When you guys won't use that kind of behavior, I may actually consider your point of views...but are you capable of having a normal debate without putting down "the other side"? Hmmm...don't think so.

that's because the left supported the invasion!!!!!!!

What I said was very clear. People who automatically discredit information because it comes from a conservative source are intellectually blind. Not people who don't rely upon conservative sources. And if you have doubts, voice them out and say why you think it's false. Don't attack the source simply because it happens to be conservative.

Can you provide evidence to support this?


Can you provide evidence to support this?

So I'm "intellectually blind"  because I don't believe this conservative whoo-ha about dinosuars and man living together in the Garden of Eden?  So conversely, any Righty who doesn't believe something because it comes from a Liberal source is the same? 

I like how you all started changing the subject form arguing about the media bias to misinterpreting what popmetal said.

Nice try.

From time to time I watch The O'Reilly Factor. I do enjoy the show majority of the times. I think he does a good job of reporting and representing different sides of an issue. I'd also say that on the majority of times I do agree with his opinions.

Talking about yourself in third person now?  :hihi:




/jarmo

That was actually funny! ;D

Sorry popmetal, you didn't really convince me. And I stand by what I said: if, in any given debate or discussion here, any of you guys can talk normally without putting down the "other side", I'd consider your point of view. Name calling and all that shit doesn't really make it for me.

Keep veering away from the subject. I have yet to see anyone debate the points in the Wall Street journal op-ed I posted.

And I stand by what I originally said. Anyone who would reject information from the Wall Street Journal simply based on the fact that it is conservative, is intellectually blind. It is not name calling, it is reality. This isn't some right wing blog or indy media. Even most liberals respect the Wall Street Journal. If you think their analysis was wrong, say how...........

My goal is not to convince you. I realize that there are some people who will only see what they want to see. I'm putting information out there for people who are actually willing to look at both sides of the issue.

Oh bullshit. The real left was against the war from day one. Remember hundreds of thosands took to the streets in NY, Boston, and other major cities. We all saw the lies and the bullshit, and the rest of the dumbass country is just now waking up to smell the coffee.

Of course you don't believe there is a bias, you believe what they say.  The same goes for universities; I'm sure they might not be consciously discriminating against conservatives, however, I'll bet the fact that they disagree with the ideas makes them believe that those scholars aren't as qualified.

Your statement was pretty clear for those that chose to actually read it correctly.? Ironically, I am not sure if they realize it, but they did exactly what you accused them of doing with the source; they dismissed your post because it was written by you (a conservative), instead of disputing the content of the article.? Funny.

He was referring to government officials supporting the invasion, not the general public

Just to remind Sandman of this post, if he happened to miss it.  I expect hell have a substantial response.   ;)

Thank you. I really appreciate this coming from you since you're one of the most fair minded posters here.

I don't watch O'Reilly and didn't see this when it happened, but? I found a transcript:

O?REILLY: All right. You didn?t support the action against Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. You were against it, OK.

GLICK: Why would I want to brutalize and further punish the people in Afghanistan ?

O?REILLY: Who killed your father!

GLICK: The people in Afghanistan ?

O?REILLY: Who killed your father.

GLICK: ? didn?t kill my father.

O?REILLY: Sure they did. The Al Qaeda people were trained there.

GLICK: The Al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people?

O?REILLY: See, I?m more angry about it than you are!

GLICK: So what about George Bush?

O?REILLY: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: The director ? senior as director of the CIA.

O?REILLY: He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: So the people that trained a hundred thousand mujahideen who were ?

O?REILLY: Man, I hope your mom isn?t watching this.

GLICK: Well, I hope she is.

and then O'Reilly cuts him off.

I guess you can say he didn't directly accuse Bush of "orchestrating" 9/11. But what Glick is insinuating here is still out of line and extremely offensive. There's really no defending this.

No offense, but O'Reilly is cutting him off so many times it's even difficult to get what either of them is saying...What did he insinuate exactly? That Bush Sr. had something to do with...? You can basically interpret this "discussion" however you see fit.

And people still see O'Reilly as a source of fair and balanced information. This is funny. As far as I'm concerned, I don't even respect a piece of shit who is always aggressive and has to cut off all of his guests as soon as they disagree with him.

But thats what hes been accused of numerous times by O'Reilly himself, as well as O'Reillys "Kool-Aid drinkers." ?Its a charge he simply did not make, and what O'Reilly (and somebody like Sandman) is doing is intellectually dishonest to say the very least. ?Sandman posted that about Glick without really knowing such a statement was made, because obviously, it wasnt...So what they are doing is fundamentally dishonest. ?Thats not even mentioning the Donahue accusation (which even you didnt bother mentioning or defending) because theres absolutely no basis for it. ?Hes playing the role of "liberal antagonist" rather than honestly considering and discussing these issues. ?Therefore, I hold most of what he (or someone like him) says pertaining to political issues in very little regard. ? ?


Well, its offensive to you as a conservative, and presumably, a defender of George Bush (41 or 43). ?O'Reilly brought up the topic of Al Qaeda member training, to which Glick brought up George H.W. Bush. ?O'Reilly interpreting that as accusing George W. Bush of "orchestrating 9/11" says all you need to know about his journalistic and moral integrity, and possibly his intelligence.

Now Glick was incorrect in mentioning Bushs tenure as C.I.A. Director (1976-77) as it relates to the training of the Mujahideen, which began in 1979. ?However, training and aid was significantly increased under Ronald Reagan, under whom Bush was Vice President. ?This relates somewhat to what I said earlier about honest discourse, because instead of addressing, or even momentarily considering Glicks point, O'Reilly predictably bullied him by taking personal shots and cutting off his microphone. ?

Theres really no defending that. ?

Edit: This is most likely the quote that has led to O'Reillys false claim:

GLICK: 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.

---

To confuse that with O'Reillys accusation, one would have to possess very limited reading comprehension, or just a plain simple mind.? You might not agree with the sentiment of the final sentence, but its not a completely unreasonable statement considering that Reagan and Bush were responsible for funding and training what would eventually become the Taliban (Reagan preferred to call them "freedom fighters").

I'm not really a big Bush Sr fan. But if Glick had accused Carter of training Al Qaeda in context of a conversation over "Who killed your father?" I'd find it just as offensive. I think most people, left or right, would find this offensive.

As for cutting him off, I agree, if I was the host, I wouldn't have cut him off. However, I've seen OR argue with people who disagree with him and he doesn't do that. For the people who watch his show regularly, does he do that often, or is it just in extreme cases?

How you could make this distinction for George H.W. Bush rather than our current president is honestly puzzling to me. 


Okay, and like I said, you can disagree with the sentiment behind that emotionally charged statement, but the real issue is O'Reilly and others claiming that Glick accused the president of "orchestrating 9/11."  And American support for the Muhajideen is certainly a valid subject of discussion in terms of Al Qaeda training, which O'Reilly brought up. 

The mujahideen were trained by the CIA to fight the invading Soviet army, not to plan terrorist attacks. Glick brought it up only as a distraction to avoid having to answer for the fact that the Taliban led Afghanistan did provide an environment for Al Qaeda to train in, which would have destroyed his case for opposing the war in Afghanistan.

GLICK: -- 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 mujahideen to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government.


Yes, the Mujahideen were trained with the intention of fending off the Soviets, but many also predicted American blowback as a result of such training.? I dont think Glick stated or implied that George Bush (or Reagan or Carter) intentionally trained these fighters to use that training aganist us, but thats essentially what happened.? But were digressing...the point is, despite your level of agreement, its a valid subject of discussion.? O'Reilly could have responded similar to the way you did; instead he cowardly cut off the microphone and has since continued to lie about what was said.? As I said before, that says all you need to know about O'Reilly character and integrity.? His cowardice follows him behind-the-scenes, too.  Despite his tough-guy persona, countless challenges for people to appear on his show, and ridicule of those with enough sense not to indulge his nonsense and bullying, he refuses to allow anybody from the Media Matters organization to appear on his show (despite continuous one-sided attacks).  You talk about outlandish claims, hes essentially blamed that organization (one that simply provides audio/video of false/misleading/outrageous Right-Wing statements, including O'Reillys, and debunks them) for his use of security.   Hes becoming increasingly McCarthy-like and Im anticipating his return to private life.? His brand of discourse is not needed.

Glick was a guest on the show and he is entitled to state his POV. You should really watch this for yourself--you will see O'Reilly for the cruel man that he is.

I definately don't always agree with O'Reilly.  In fact, I watched his program the other night in disgust as he was trying to explain the recent drop  in oil prices.  Some things this guy just has no clue on.

With that said, I do like the fact that he interrupts people and doesn't give them a free ride with their bullshit answers.  He makes the people that come on his show prove their points with facts.  Everyone in Washington tries to spin.  And for those that actually watch his show, he actually does give people the chance to respond.  I think many on the right and the left don't like him because he doesn't put up with BS.  Take it for what its worth, but to me it sure beats Larry King or George Stephanapolous sit and drool over their guests as they give completely false rewritings of actual events.

Yeah, it's real cool to bully your guests and cut off their mics.

i stand corrected. i watched bill o's show and heard him talk about glick. he may be saying false things about him. or i may have misunderstood him. 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170223,00.html

but please do not call me dishonest. i made a mistake.

in these boards, no one (on either side) makes comments that are dishonest. there are enough people arguing on both sides that anything that is un-factual, will be brought to everyone's attention.

i appreciate you pointing out my error, but keep the cheap shots outta here.

you keep saying "you guys". and i am in the minority right on these boards, which i believe you are referring.

so i just hope that you keep this same standard for those with liberal views as well.

cause i agree with you 100%, this is not the place to take cheap shots at others and put people down. 

They jump on you for one mistake and accuse of being dishonest, but they defend Glick's, obviously intentional, attempt to spin away from OR's question  :confused:

Well this thread has more to do with O'Reilly, and what Glick said, agree or disagree, has nothing to do with the fact that O'Reilly is perpetuating an outright lie.? Sandman subscribed to and perpetuated that lie - thats a fact.? Did he know that the serious allegation he was making was true?? Obviously not.? He chose to say it anyway...and he said the same about Donahue.? Its a dishonest, unserious form of debate and I cant take him seriously.?



You made a dishonest mistake.? You obviously didnt listen to or read what was said fairly, if at all, and you carelessly commented on it and perpetuated an untruth in the process.? If you were honest, you would have evaluated what was said, and assuming that youre reasonably intelligent, concluded that Glick didnt make that allegation and O'Reilly is in fact lying.? Your carelessness in relaying that lie suggests to me that youre a lot more interested playing that liberal antagonist role than anything else.? Thats not honest (or productive) in my view and affects how seriously I take your posts.

Sorry...but who do you think trained AQ?

Santa Claus?


It was the USA who trained them.


I pointed it out in the begining of this thread actually.

This is usually the case.

He posts a link that has the word "opinion" in it, which links to a neocon propaganda machine and then tells me I'm stupid not to believe it.

What a load.

If I posted an article from NYTs, you'd cry foul like a bunch of little girls.

The "liberal media" thing is a myth. It is the same way you call anything a "conspiracy theory" if another idea is given.

If somebody holds the president accountable.......or asks him to be held accountable, then all of a sudden it's "Liberal media" at it again. Anything that does not favor your opinion, is put in a bad light.

Anybody (and there have been plenty) to come from Bush's cabinet to criticize it, is quickly labeled " A nut job" or "out to make a quick buck with a book deal."

It's all the same:

Read something you don't like? = Liberal Media

Hear something you don't like?  = Nut Job (ignoring all credentials or level of experience)

Hear any alternative scenerio to the "war" in Iraq = Conspiracy theory

Hear anybody speak out against the war = traitor, hates America, should move to France, etc etc.

How sheepish...........

OK. We know already. Liberals are allowed to do whatever they want, including dishonestly spinning out of answering questions they don't like, but if a conservative does anything dishonest (and it's arguable at best that OR was dishonest, since Glick did imply what he accused him of) they deserve to be crucified. Nothing new here.

Oh ... and I'm sure sandman will be heartbroken that you no longer take his posts seriously. There are plenty of leftists here who make false claims and never own up for them. Since you're such an astute judge of honesty, why don't you go whine about how dishonest their mistakes are? At least sandman had the decency to admit he made a mistake. That tells me all I need to know about whether he is honest or not.

To fight the invading Soviet army. Not to launch 911. It is absolutely despicable to imply that the US training the mujahideen to fight the Soviet Union is the same thing as Afghanistan providing training camps for Al Qaeda to plan and train for 911! This is exactly what Glick did.

Explain where the opinion is wrong. If you dismiss it only because it is coming from what you refer to as "a neocon propaganda machine," then I'm not calling you stupid, you make yourself look stupid.

Keep the cheap shots and lies coming. Apparently, it's all you've got.

Ok, what the hell are you talking about?

 ???

Explain how Glick implied that "Bush orchestrated 9/11."? : ok:? This is even more dishonest since youve essentially conceded that he didnt say it...

You know that O'Reillys stating that Glick believes that George W. Bush "orchestrated" 9/11.  The "Bush" that Glick credited with training future terrorists was George H.W., not W.?  Now if youre really foolish enough to insinuate that he alleged George H.W. Bush of orchestrating 9/11, please continue.



1) I dont expect him to care about what I think of his posts, and dont care if he does or doesnt.

2) This is one of, I think, 3 threads Ive even bothered checking in this section.? Sandmans statement happened to be most apparently false.


 :hihi:

Now tell me what other choice he had?? To do what youre apparently doing and rationalize O'Reillys lie??

fair enough, bro. but if people are taking anything in these posts seriously, they have major issues.  :rofl:

Like I said before, Glick implied it, he didn't actually directly say it, but it's still just as sickening a statement. What the CIA did in training the mujahideen to fight the Soviets was a noble thing, and thier defeat in Afghanistan contributed greatly to the collapse of that hell hole. Nobody, Carter, Reagan, or HW Bush, supported the mujahideen so that one day Al Qaeda could fly plaines into buildings, but this is what Glick is implying. Can you say O'Reilly is stretching things when he says Glick said Bush "orchestrated" ? Yes, he is. Is it a "lie"? I guess technically you could say it is, but you have to stretch things yourself. In light of the above quote, it is very clear where Glick's sentiment is. You'd have a hard time convincing anyone who doesn't already hate O'Reilly that he is a dishonest man based on this.

Since you're such a crusader against dishonesty. Here's a lie for you that's not based on any technicalities:


Democratic government? Mohammad Taraki became President after a communist coup:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1569826.stm

So Glick calls a Marxist who took power after a bloody coup a "democratic government." I think we all know what his true colors are.

Anyway, in consistency with your previous statements, I expect you will now go off at Glick for his blatant dishonesty ........