Here Today... Gone To Hell!

i've noticed alot of people like to talk about BO, so i figured we should have a thread dedicated to him.

more importantly, i wanted to point out that Howard Stern - the King of all Media - enters the No Spin Zone on Wednesday and Thursday.

should be interesting. i hope i remember to watch.

Oh God, sweet Jesus, I FUCKING HATE BILL O'REILLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you.

I could say a lot in this thread...and I more than likely will, but right now Ill just give one example of his dishonesty:

"If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again." - Bill O'Reilly (3/18/03)

Well, obviously an apology to the nation was in order, and O'Reilly is a man of his word...

"My analysis was wrong and I'm sorry. I was wrong. I'm not pleased about it at all.  I am much more skeptical of the Bush administration now than I was at that time." - Bill O'Reilly (2/10/04)

...Actually, hes not.  He said on national TV "I will not trust the Bush administration again."  You would think a guy with as much integrity as O'Reilly would stand behind that pledge.  Well, O'Reillys not so much a man of integrity as he is a wormy equivicator.  "More skeptical" than he "was at that time" isnt the same thing, and its not delivering on his disingenuous pledge. 

While Im at it, let me add another example:

At the BookExpo America conference (which you can probably watch on C-Spans website), Bill O'Reilly spoke about the noble principles under which he operates: "I dont call people names...I dont call anybody a liar.  Im not doing that.  Im trying to elevate the discourse....I dont call people big, fat idiots."

30 minutes later?

"Hey SHUT UP!  You had your thirty-five minutes." 

"SHUT UP!"

"We're supposed to be on here for 15 minutes and this idiot goes 35."

And lets not forget Bill "I Dont Call People Names" 'O'Reillys greatest achievements in discourse elevation:

"These pin-heads running around going, ?Get out of Iraq now? don?t know what they are talking about. These are the same people before Hitler invaded in WWII that were saying, ?He?s not such a bad guy.? They don?t get it."  This, obviously, in reference to 37 year veteran Jack Murtha. 

"You got me at 8 o'clock. And everybody knows I was tryin' to be fair to Kerry. You got [Sean] Hannity who thinks Kerry's the devil, and [Alan] Colmes who thinks Kerry is St. Francis of Assisi. They're at 9. So, one guy doesn't like him the other guy loves him. And then, you got [Greta] Van Sustren at 10, whose husband worked for Kerry. Raised money for him. Okay? Do the math. "FOX News attacked me" -- aw, you're a -- he's a sissy. He's a sissy. I knew it when he couldn't throw the ball at Fenway Park -- he's a sissy. You're a sissy."  You would think that as a member of the network, O'Reilly would be aware of the fact that the network actually runs programming outside of its 8-10pm lineup. 

"If you attack someone publicly, as these men did to me, you have an obligation to face the person you are smearing. If you don't, you are a coward."  Especially interesting, since O'Reilly has strongly attacked the folks at Media Matters, calling them "the most vile, despicable human beings in the country."  So adhering to O'Reillys own principle, he has an obligation to face somebody from Media Matters, correct?  No.  Apparently, O'Reillys a coward.  "O'Reilly has repeatedly attacked Media Matters while refusing Media Matters President and CEO David Brock's request to appear on The O'Reilly Factor." - MediaMatters.org

And the list of false, misleading and simply inane statements is virtually endless.  Ill probably share some examples later.

Howard Stern was great quite a few years ago.  The state of his show now is just depressing, but thats for another thread.

Did you see the move "Outfoxed"? When he was picking a fight and bullying that poor kid who lost his dad? He's a total and comeplete asshole, a spineless bastard. True vermon.

i love the hatred you people have towards this guy.

do you or have you watched his show on a regular basis?

i've checked out his show a few times recently and all he ever talks about is the war on xmas. it's a little annoying, but i have to agree with him on it.



The humbugs strike back on Christmas: that is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo."

As you most likely know, there is a very small minority of Americans who want Christmas out of the public square, but they've made big inroads into America's most revered tradition.

However, Christmas is making a come back. Some companies who used to avoid saying "Merry Christmas" have reversed themselves. And all over the country, lawsuits are being filed to keep Christmas on public display.

That's not playing well in the secular progressive movement, which wants to diminish Christmas and all vestiges of Christian power. The SPs realize that to get gay marriage, legalized drugs, euthanasia, and other parts of their agenda passed, they need to marginalize religious forces. That is what is behind the assault on Christmas in the USA.

Over the weekend, some liberal newspapers stepped up to the plate. The Baltimore Sun said, "Groups such as the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State say Christmas is under no threat from them or anyone else."

Well, that's reassuring! Thank you, Baltimore Sun!

The Richmond Times Dispatch editorialized, "To hear some voices ? Bill O'Reilly's, for instance ? Christmas lies under siege. To refer to Christmas vacation as 'winter break' in no way demeans the occasion."

Of course not, Richmond Times. Not calling Christmas vacation Christmas vacation doesn't demean it at all.

But the absolute best comes from the most enthusiastic secular newspaper in the country, The New York Times, our pals. Editorial writer Adam Cohen, who never met a secular cause he didn't like writes, "The Christmas that Mr. O'Reilly and his allies are promoting -- one closely aligned by retailers, with a smackdown attitude toward nonobservers fits their campaign to make America more like a theocracy, with Christian displays on public property and Christian prayer in public schools."

Of course, Mr. Cohen has no idea what he's talking about. I don't have a smackdown attitude toward nonobservers. They can do what they want. I don't care. I don't want a theocracy. And I don't want Christian prayers in public schools.

But Mr. Cohen is not interested in the truth. He wants to demonize. He wants Americans to believe this whole Christmas campaign is to promote Christianity.

What "Talking Points" is really promoting is respect, respect for a holiday that's celebrated by 95 percent of Americans. It's insane to diminish Christmas. It's also wrong.

Most Americans love this federal holiday and they don't want it tarnished by nutty far left fanatics. Get that, Adam?

More than 100,000 of you voted in our billoreilly.com poll, which asks, will you shop at stores that do not say `Merry Christmas'? 81 percent said no. Nineteen percent said yes.

So the secular progressives are going to lose the fight. But as I said, they're not happy about it. And they'll do what they always, attack.

And that's "The Memo."

Great movie, and they really show what is behind fox, and O'reilly.

LIAR LIAR.......


Continuing his fight against the "war on Christmas," O'Reilly falsely claimed year-old Daily Show clip aired previous night

On the December 2 broadcasts of his Fox News talk show The O'Reilly Factor and his Westwood One radio show The Radio Factor, Bill O'Reilly played a year-old clip from Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart to demonstrate an assault on Christmas by secular forces. However, he told his radio listeners the clip aired the day before.


*********

There is nothing more important to worry about than whether a privately owned retail store decides to wish everyone a merry christmas or a happy holidays? Some people need to get a life and find something really worth squabling over, youself included Sandman.

i'm french, i gotta love o'reilly

YOU are telling me to get a life. that's hilarious.  :rofl:

but i shouldn't be surprised since you regularly insult other posters on this board. yet you criticize o'reilly for attacking people. kinda hypocritical. keep us posted on your efforts to save the world.

and if you had read my post you would have seen that i said his crusade is "annoying".


anyway, back on topic...i think it's interesting that a religious holiday is recognized as a federal holiday. i'm sure that drives some secularists crazy and they'd love to change it.

That is the point. Nobody cares.

It's a non issue brought up by a blowhard for dipshits to get all worked up about.

And it works. ;D

I'm sure there are some...but, given what's transpired, I don't think there are many.

The fact is, O'Reilly is taking a relatively minor issue, and doing what he does best:  Spinning it to get his audience into a foaming, snarling, panicy state of hysteria.

I did find some of what he said pretty darn funny, considering how much hypocricy was dripping from it.

i think it is an interesting church/state issue.

i watched 5 minutes of his show the last 4 or 5 nights and i swore i was watching reruns. not very entertaining.

How interesting Bill is on any given night seems to have more to do with his guest than anything else.

I find the X-mas thing to be sort of boring, and overdone.  Hell, HE'S given the movement more publicity than almost anyone else has....

I watch bill just for the fucking hell of it.. It's entertaining at best.. He's a fucking one sided asshole.. Whatever he feels is right is the only way.. When someone has him beat he just argues with no fucking point.. As I said interesting show but the man is to set in his ways as the only ways

I would love to see stern on his show, that would be awesome

I like O Reilly but because I like him that doesnt mean I agree with everything he says or does.

I like the work he does on his show to try and get things done for example "Jessica's Law" is great, I like his stand on the border issue.

I dont really care about the merry X-mas thing though, honestly I dont give a shit whether someone says happy holidays or merry christmas.

To me if someone says Happy Holidays that is just a quick way to say Merry Christmas,Happy Hanukah,Quanza *SP* whatever.

So on that issue I dont care and disagree with O Reilly.


The kid he told to shut up was because I think, Correct me if im wrong but Im sure that kid came on their sayin stuff like Bush caused 9/11 and shit like that which is why O Reilly told him to shut up. I could be wrong though, but Im almost sure thats why.


I dont agree with O Reilly on the Utah law that kids under the age of 16 should be charged as felons if they have sex. That to me is ridiculous.

Two 13 year olds having sex isnt a felony and shouldnt be classified the same as murderers or rapists.


I do like O Reilly though, His show is entertaining and I like the fact that he believes what he believes and doesnt aplogize for it.

I admire and respect anyone who sticks their neck out and tries to do good with his platform.

So I can overlook the negative of OReilly and focus on all the good he does.

If u stick anyone under a microscope u are gonna find hypocrisies and other kinds of stuff, So im not gonna penalize Oreilly for a few instances of that.

Ill correct you: No, he didnt.  But that didnt stop O'Reilly from lying about it numerous times since.

This has been addressed with him already too.........

People make mistakes though and I just dont condemn O reilly for every thing he has done wrong.

I dont see people hating on Dan Rather and CBS news for their errors which were way more prominent than O Reilly's.

One can say CBS news helped Bush win the election by reporting inaccurate and false information. I think a lot of voters on the fence saw that and it may have swayed a lot of them.

Im simply stating that when u do as many shows as he does, sooner or later you are gonna make a mistake, u are gonna goof up, but Im not gonna stop liking someone over that.

if that were the case Id never watch anything on TV and Id have no friends.

Just like The SF thing, that was clearly satire but yet Left Wing websites posted it as if he were being serious, took every single thing out of context and tried to make him look bad.

Thats why anything negative being said about O Reilly, Id have to see the ENTIRE thing with my two eyes and hear it as well.

Cause anything can be manipulated into something else.

Its not a mistake.? Hes lying.


 :confused:

Were you of present mind last fall?? Then I imagine you saw some people "hating on" Dan Rather and CBS...it was a great distraction from the actual content of the story.


 :no:

I dont think youre getting it.? These arent little goof-ups.? These are principles espoused by an extremely sanctimonious man that he contradicts on a regular basis.


Again, I have to point out that you seem to buy everything he says and regurgitate it almost verbatim.?

"And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead. "? What is even satirical about this?? Bill O'Reilly isnt clever...in fact, hes proven himself to be witless when it comes to humor.? To chalk this up as satire is pathetic at best.

Tell me then, what was the point behind his "satire?"? By stating that we should refuse helping San Francisco after a terrorist attack (hilarious!), what is he "suggesting?"? It certainly sounds like hes suggesting that San Francisco shouldnt be eligble for help in the wake of a terrorist attack.? So maybe you can explain where the "satire" kicks in instead of simply parroting his talking points.

Perhaps the most telling thing about O'Reillys brilliant satire is when he explained the controversey a few days later (http://mediamatters.org/items/200511150003).? He fearlessly played the audio of his comments (from his radio show)...but cut it off right before it got to the actual controversial statements about terrorists attacking SF, ambiguously saying "...and then I went on to do a satirical riff."? If you dont understand that thats the most flagrant example of intellectual dishonesty and disingenuousness...then you just might be a "Kool Aid drinker."? He didnt have the integrity to honestly address his audience by allowing them to hear his controversial statements.? Instead, he hid them.? And when his guest pointed that out, O'Reilly angrily snarled "Yes, we have the whole -- we can't play the whole thing. It's five minutes long. And anybody can hear it on billoreilly.com."? The entire clip was one minute and nine seconds and he probably played 40 seconds of it.? And while he bravely used the excuse to plug his website once again, I think most recognize that its not the same as actually playing it for his television audience.

Of course the irony of the whole thing is that O'Reilly is Mr. Put It To A Vote.? Ive heard him champion the idea of "letting the people decide" many times, but he then "satirically" encourages terrorist attacks on cities that dont vote to his liking.


MediaMatters.org.? Each story is accompanied by actual video and audio.? Of course this is what O'Reilly deems an "extreme Left-Wing smear site," and I believe he actually credits them for his need for physical security.? Thats right...by posting up audio/video clips and pointing out factual inaccuracies/general ridiculousness, theyre endangering his safety.  Then again, this is the same man who says were in "World War 3" and is fighting the "War Against Christmas." :hihi:

the howard stern interview was funny. bill really gave him the opportunity to promote satellite radio. i think those two are friends.

part 2 of 3 is on tonight.

I haven't seen it, but Stern talked a bit about it this morning.  He said Bill was a pretty good guy off camera.  On camera Stern said he had to reign him in a couple of times (and the callers said the same) when Bill would ask a question and then talk over Howard's answers.

I've got it TIVO'd.  I do think it's funny that Bill is stretching it over 3 nights.   Talk about using an interview to full effect!!

Stern on Howard Dean (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/howardstern-Dean.mp3)

I actually listened to the entire radio show the night of the SF incident and trust me, he was being sattirical, he wasnt being serious.

U write any kind of satire down and read it without the emotion and written word and it sounds totally different as he meant it.

So dont give me the bullshit on San Francisco. Even the SF chronicle took it as satire and didnt jump on him about it.

Booker if u dont watch the show then u dont know and taking the info from a 2nd hand source doesnt overtake hearing it live.


The Howard Stern piece was hilarious, Howard kept telling Bill that he was gonna smack him around, it was crazy.

Part 2 tonight should be great as well.

I love when he told Bill to stop being a wise ass. that was priceless.

I dont need to listen for 3 hours to put a 1:09 audio clip into context.


...And the audio is available, both on MediaMatters.org and [at least once was] on O'Reillys website.  Ive heard the whole clip, in context, at least 3 or 4 times.


So why are you avoiding answering my question?  I even bolded it for you: What was the point behind his "satire?" 

Im sure wont address the other points in my post: the deliberate hiding of this "satire" on his show or the lie that its "5 minutes long," but at least tell me what O'Reilly was suggesting by telling San Francisco that they shouldnt receive federal funding or assistance in a terrorist attack.



I watched the show in which O'Reilly played the clip the night it came on.  I listened to the radio clip more than once.  But thats actually unimportant since the site I referenced has audio and video of each instance...so explain the problem.  If its context, Id ask you 1. If you even checked out the clips they provided to know that and 2. What theyre omitting to alter the context?

booker - you play right into what o'reilly wants - people talking about him. AND people talking about issues he wants publicized.

i had no idea what was going on with this Proposition I in SF. what a fucked up city that is.

Great rebuttal.  : ok:

thanks.

and thanks for getting the info out there.

Booker no offense but I have read thousands of your posts on this board over the years and you have sort of a dry sense of humor so I dont expect you to really get what he was saying.


Basically San Francisco voted to keep military recruiters out of high schools and SF also wanted the proposition passed so kids could get grants to go to school instead of using the G.I Bill or what have you.

So basically SF is against the military so he was basically stating that If you dont support the military, then why should they risk their lives for you?

Here is you an analogy.

it would be like a drug dealer talking shit about policemen, denouncing them, calling them names and not supporting cops but then they call the cops when some rival drug dealers are tryin to kill him.

See what Im sayin?

If u hate cops and curse cops and dont respect them, then why should they risk their lives for you?

Its kind of the same thing here.

He said though "of course the military would defend San Francisco"I guess mediamatters stopped the tape short of that.

That is a really watered down inaccurate version, probably the OR version if I had to guess.

If I had a "dry sense of humor," wouldnt I better understand so-called satire?? Dryness, as it pertains to humor, denotes subtlety and irony...sounds a lot like satire, doesnt it?? And no offense to you, but youre probably the last person from whom I would accept any analysis of my cognizance of humor or anything else, for that matter.

I "get" what he was saying - because its exactly the same as what he said.? He made a literal statement about the response San Francisco should receive from the government.? That suggestion, as I see it, and as you yourself go on to try to explain, is a genuine one.? And he embellished it by encouraging a terrorist attack on the city.? As I said, facitious or not, its not funny.? It doesnt even approach amusing.? And not necessarily because its offensive, but because its witless.? Like every attempt at humor O'Reilly makes,? it lacks any sense of cleverness.? Its dumb and easy.? And the fact that you find it "satirical" is enough to reject your judgement of my sense of humor.?

This suggestion, that the federal government should shirk any assistance to San Francisco - ostensibly in the wake of a terrorist attack, is controversial enough, but to amplify such a stupid statement by telling Al Qaeda to blow up a landmark is crass and stupid.? You also have to wonder what O'Reilly would have to say if Michael Moore facitiously told Al Qaeda to blow up the White House.

And of course youve failed to address O'Reillys blatant dishonesty in hiding the statements from his audience, or saying that it was 5 minutes long, etc.?

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/ff/Kool-AidMan.jpg)

No now dont get ahead of yourself.

He wasn't sayin it literally and anyone who listened would've realized that he wasnt condoning a terrorist attack on SF.  That is pure nonsense quite frankly.

I'm glad you brought up Micheal Moore by the way.

Why is it because O reilly made a couple false statements he is a bastard and denounced by you and SLC HOWEVER

There are countless contradictions and half truths in Moore's documentaries but you all refuse to even acknowledge them and take everything in Moore's work as fact.

isnt that somewhat hypocritical?

People who are on O'Reilly's ass over SF are people who hate him and want to try and hang him for anything.

I can't speak for O Reilly, was that 5 minutes long, honestly I dont know, so i cant really answer it either way.




Like Howard Stern tonight telling O'Reilly he was gonna smack him around, a website could take that, spin it around, write it in a different context and make it seem like they almost had a fist fight on the air.

O'Reilly doesnt support a terrorist attack on SF, that was just his way of telling SF that they were wrong for not supporting the military. Should he have chosen his words more carefully and been a little more creative? Sure but he was tryin to get a point across and he used a very extreme way to do so.

I think most people realized that except for the obvious OReilly bashers.

I find this sentence hypocritical...


Talk about getting ahead of yourself...Please show me evidence that suggests that I take everything in Moores work as fact...in fact, find any evidence that Im a Moore fan or have even watched anything hes done.? ?: ok:


So he didnt literally suggest that San Francisco should be off-limits to federal government assistance?

"If you [San Francisco] want to ban military recruiting, fine, but I'm not going to give you another nickel of federal money."

That train of thought might lead one to believe that if that were the case, the federal government might not respond to an attack in a city that it doesnt support.  You know what else supports that suggestion?

"And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it."

If thats not what hes suggesting, then what is the point of his so-called satire?? By saying ""And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it," did he mean we actually should do something about it??


Did I ask you to speak for O'Reilly ???? He spoke for himself...and he said the clip was 5 minutes long.? Ive already stated that its one minute and nine seconds, and only 30 or so seconds longer than what he actually played.? He didnt play the extra 30 seconds, the most important part of the controversey, and you dont see that as dishonest?


Youve provided no evidence that MediaMatters has taken his statement/s out of context, so Im not sure why you make a point of it, other than the fact that you heard O'Reilly himself repeat it and seem to parrot whatever he says.

http://www.operationjustsaymerrychristmas.com/

Merry Christmas!

What's hilarious is, I heard the show LIVE, I heard the tone of voice he was using, I knew the context he was saying it in, U read a transcript and heard a chopped down version on Mediamatters.

So yeah my post wins over yours since you are an obvious O Reilly hater, you have little to no personality whatsoever and now I wish I hadnt even started arguing with you because you cant argue with someone who cant see two sides of something. You have a one track mind when it comes to arguing, You believe what you want to believe, I could roll out the entire radio broadcast and it wouldnt matter cause you believe what you want.

Anyone with an IQ over 10 who listened to the ENTIRE interview, knew he wasnt being literal.

But Bitches bitch, so you have your right.

 :hihi:

So what youre saying is the intonation of his voice was different live than it is on the audio clips available?  I heard the audio.

1. What did MediaMatters "chop down?" 

2. How does it affect the context?

Ive already proven that O'Reilly was the one who "chopped down" the clip on his television show to change the context and omitted the part encouraging a terrorist attack against San Francisco, but youve failed to address that.  : ok:


You could roll out the entire broadcast?  Even the 2 hours and 58 minutes that has absolutely nothing to do with what were talking about?  Go right ahead, Im interested in seeing what kind of point you would prove.

I enjoyed the 3 part stern interview.. Bill had a few nice words for howard outside of the interview on one of thiose fox new's shows on around 4 pm.. He said he liked him as a person..

Did you see the saturday night live skit last night which parodied OR.  It was hysterical.

i missed it. did they rag on him about his xmas crusade?

its funny, i was at sears yesterday and they had cheesy "Merry Christmas" signs that were just printouts from a computer on 8x11 paper. but there were TONS of them all over the store. it seemed as if they cahnged their mind about saying merry xmas and were told to get signs up ASAP. i wonder what caused them to change their minds?

The SNL skit was pretty funny. You think SNL may be getting good again?

Here is why O Reilly claims to be "Fair and Balanced"


Last night they had a debate on Bush, he had the Republican white House assistant on and right after commercial he has a Massachussetts Democrat congressman on to respond to what she said.


He is fair and balanced because he has Dems and Republicans present their arguments and the viewers can take it for what its worth. He is the best on TV at doing that.

I dont like how OR is held to this unattainable level where he isnt allowed to make any mistakes at all.

That isnt fair and no one could live by the standards that people who arent fans put on him.

Sometimes you leave me speechless D.