Can Bush bounce back?

[Booker Floyd]

Dan Rather, Brian Williams, Morley Saffer, Katie Couric, Tom Brokaw, David Brinkley, Elizabeth Varga, Bob Wodruff, just pick anyone that turns up on ABC, NBC,? ?CBS
not to mention the New york Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, La Times. etc, etc

Im hoping that was a rhetorical question, your lightheaded but not to that extent?

 

Speaking of "lightheaded," did I even ask you a question pertaining to those names, much less one that could be construed as rhetorical?

Well, youve given a list...a ridiculous one, but a list nonetheless. ?No examples of their "liberal agenda," but I wasnt expecting one.

And youre still dodging my posts...maybe youre just overlooking them...

Shades, can you address this post And this one.

[Booker Floyd]

As for the O'Reilly discussion:



His excuse, that the box was checked Republican as a mistake since theres no "independent" box, is laughable.  Wouldnt an independent be more inclined to check off the box that says "I do not wish to enroll in party?"

The suggestion that Bill O'Reilly is anything less than a thinly-veiled conservative Republican shill is preposterous in my estimation.  Hes created himself a successful schtick - the tough-talkin', independent voice of regular folks.  Its ridiculous, but a lot of people buy it.  You might call them "Kool Aid drinkers."  O'Reillys dishonesty, hypocrisy and paranoia are truly spectacular at this point, and hes emerging as a genuine, modern-day Joseph McCarthy.

[sandman]

i think a better description of o'reilly is that he's entertaining. he's dominated the news media scene for several years and gets paid $10M per year for it.

criticizing his viewers is a close-minded thing to do IMO. 

maybe some people just enjoy open discussions between people with different viewpoints.

[SLCPUNK]

i think a better description of o'reilly is that he's entertaining. he's dominated the news media scene for several years and gets paid $10M per year for it.

criticizing his viewers is a close-minded thing to do IMO. 

maybe some people just enjoy open discussions between people with different viewpoints.

Look who is changing the subject when it all comes out in the wash.

[SLCPUNK]

When the liberals realize the err of their ways then maybe, but I cant see that happening
All I see is more of the same old shit. Wont work ladies.

Could somebody please ban this guy?

[sandman]

i think a better description of o'reilly is that he's entertaining. he's dominated the news media scene for several years and gets paid $10M per year for it.

criticizing his viewers is a close-minded thing to do IMO.?

maybe some people just enjoy open discussions between people with different viewpoints.

Look who is changing the subject when it all comes out in the wash.

whos' changing the subject? when all what comes out in the wash??

trust me, bro, i'm not losing any sleep over what bill o'reilly is registered as. 

[SLCPUNK]

You crack yourself up huh? At least somebody finds you funny........

I didn't say you were losing sleep, although you were defending his lies. But what do you expect from a group of liars?

[pilferk]

So he is conservative, whats the point, give it a rest already.
How about the rest of the "main stream" media, the ones that reach 10 times as many households each night.
the liberals dressed in a fair and balanced forum?
Thats who you should be worried about.
They are so obvious with their agenda that it reachs comical stage.
And there is no one, NO ONE, except maybe Oreilly and Sean Hannity and afew others on FOX to call them on it.

Certainly not me.  I don't care a whit if he's conservative.

[sandman]

You crack yourself up huh? At least somebody finds you funny........

I didn't say you were losing sleep, although you were defending his lies. But what do you expect from a group of liars?

how was i "defending his lies"?

either you don't know how to read, or you are a liar yourself.

you've now called me a racist and a liar within a couple of days. yet you go bitchin to the mods to ban other people. that is fuckin hilarious. 

(and yes, i do find myself quite funny.)

[pilferk]

His voting registration card is hardly proof of what he refers himself as. He filled that out years ago and maybe his views have changed. i was registered democrat for years because we had a Dem Representative living down the street and she would "do favors" for people she thought were voting for her.

But you said yourself, the argument isn't about what he is, but what he's referred to himself as. ?As a matter of public record, he reffered to himself as a Republican. ?Case closed. Oh, and he filled out the card in the mid-90's, when he moved.

What other ?proof? have you provided? You stated there were quotes like these?.

1. O'Reilly, when asked, has said he is not an "across the board conservative"
2. but his "audience is made up mostly of moderate conservatives". (Interview with Mike Wallace).
3. He has said he's "mostly conservative". (a quote)

But I have not seen these quotes anywhere. ?(a quote)? does not count as a source. And I looked at the Mike Wallace interview and didn?t see any of those quotes.

Just because you say he said these things, does not make them true. Links are required on these threads. So i wouldn't call that "AMPLE examples".

And on top of all that, I have provided quotes from Bill that contradict what you are saying.? ?

www.michiganimc.org/newswire/display/3797/index.php

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/9/27/123145.shtml

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/08/24/bill_oreilly_admits_most_of_his_viewers_are_republican.php

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Features/BookReview/102803.html

All showing O'Reilly has acknowledged his viewership is mostly conservative.

I think the Rolling Stone article (link posted in one of my above posts) demonstrates that he's said painted himself as not an "across the board conservative" (a phrase echoed in a book review....which, admittedly, given the rest of the sentence appears to be a quote MAY be where I got the phrase from. ?If that's true, you are correct, it was not a direct quote and I apologize.) whether I can find the exact quote or not.

As for O'Reilly saying things that contradict the claim...well, it's obvious the guy is disingenious about his affiliation. ?Otherwise, why lie about being a Registered Republican? ?And then FURTHER lie about the reasoning being that there wasn't a box to check for Independant (not true, if you look at the published form). ?Of COURSE there's quotes that contradict the proof offered up.

So, now we get down, once again, to ideology and semantics. ?And I'm not going to go "hunting" anymore simply based on that (the HUNDREDS of pages I get when googling O'Reilly makes re-finding a particular passage akin to finding a needle in a haystack). ?There is MORE than enough compelling evidence contained in my above edited post (the one with all the links in it) to make the case that my original statement is true. ?Maybe you don't feel it's definitive enough evidence, but I do.

[pilferk]

You really should lay off the polls, you'd think you would have learned your lesson in 2004 when the polls had kerry winning right up until the time he LOST.

? Dan Rather, Brian Williams, Morley Saffer, Katie Couric, Tom Brokaw, David Brinkley, Elizabeth Varga, Bob Wodruff, just pick anyone that turns up on ABC, NBC,? ?CBS
not to mention the New york Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, La Times. etc, etc

Im hoping that was a rhetorical question, your lightheaded but not to that extent?

The POLLS showed the two neck and neck leading right up to the election.

The EXIT POLLS (which, as we've seen before, are flawed by their nature) showed Kerry winning on election day.

There is a BIG difference between the two.

[pilferk]

i think a better description of o'reilly is that he's entertaining. he's dominated the news media scene for several years and gets paid $10M per year for it.

criticizing his viewers is a close-minded thing to do IMO.?

maybe some people just enjoy open discussions between people with different viewpoints.

SOME people do...they're watching Crossfire on CNN.

MORE people seem to like sensationalist, emotional presentation slanted to their way of thinking. (Look at the Rolling Stone article depicting O'Reilly picking out stories, who's link I posted aways back and the transcript of Bill Press's appearance on O'Reilly's show).

They seem to be watching O'Reilly.

And I'll admit, depending on the guest, I'm one of 'em, at times.

[sandman]

the truth is that bill o'reilly does NOT refer to himself as "conservative".

i don't care what he called himself more than 10 YEARS AGO. that's not relevant.

and sure, maybe o'reilly has stated that his audience is mostly moderate conservatives. but that does not prove your statement!

so this proof is suspect at best.

AND i showed examples of Bill calling himself a "traditionalist", and not fitting into any single ideology.

[pilferk]

the truth is that bill o'reilly does NOT refer to himself as "conservative".

i don't care what he called himself more than 10 YEARS AGO. that's not relevant.

and sure, maybe o'reilly has stated that his audience is mostly moderate conservatives. but that does not prove your statement!

so this proof is suspect at best.

AND i showed examples of Bill calling himself a "traditionalist", and not fitting into any single ideology.

No, the TRUTH is there is significant evidence to support both positions.? That's the truth.

AND, the TRUTH is, as much as you dislike it, O'Reilly's voter registration card (and the fact he then lied about it) is certainly relevant.? You just choose to ignore it.? And he was registered as a Republican til 2000.? Hardly 10 years ago.? AND insisted he wasn't until confronted with proof.? AND then lied about the form, itself, and WHY he was registered as a repub.? You can try to explain it away all you want, but it's hard evidence, a matter of public record, and certainly more "trustworthy" than any statments O'Reilly has made on the subject.? I mean, given he LIED about it, in the first place. But certainly clear evidence that he referred to himself as conservative.

His AUDIENCE does matter, since one interpretation of "conservative commentator" (as in a commentator who comments on issues that interest conservatives) would go directly to that bit of evidence.? So, again, it certainly IS proof.

And while you've shown statments where O'Reilly says he's a traditionalist, I've shown proof he's lied about his political ideology in the past (his voter registration card) so your "proof" is certainly as suspect as anything I've provided. Edit: And, in one case, furhter proof that he's lied about being against the death penalty.  He advocated it's use!

I realize you're disappointed in the result of this discussion.? But the end result is the statement has enough factual evidence to support it that I'm comfortable making it.? Whether you agree with it or not.

[sandman]

i looked at those links and there are still NO QUOTES by Bill himself about having a conservative audience. in fact, Peter Hart states the opposite....

"O'Reilly is a good company man and he toes the line, telling people he?s not a conservative and his show isn?t conservative."

so he hasn't been registered as a Republican in over 5 years. and he went out of his way to change it. and this is your "proof" our discussion wasn't "did bill EVER refer to himself as a conservative?"

why is it so hard to admit you're wrong?

[pilferk]

i looked at those links and there are still NO QUOTES by Bill himself about having a conservative audience. in fact, Peter Hart states the opposite....

"O'Reilly is a good company man and he toes the line, telling people he?s not a conservative and his show isn?t conservative."

so he hasn't been registered as a Republican in over 5 years. and he went out of his way to change it. and this is your "proof" our discussion wasn't "did bill EVER refer to himself as a conservative?"

why is it so hard to admit you're wrong?

Read the links again.

"Bill O'Reilly said: "You know there are millions of Bush supporters sitting at home watching us right now ...."

According to the most recent Neilsen ratings, The Factor averaged 2,370,000 viewers a night in July 2005."

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/11/int03320.html (from the same interview you quote above):

"HART: I think the research that they?ve done on it demonstrates that the audience is mostly conservative. This is a point that O'Reilly concedes nowadays, though on other occasions, he has said just the opposite."

2nd hand? Possibly.? But I consider that compelling evidence. Also further evidence that Bill likes to change what he says as the moment allows.

In addition to the link I provided, previously, where O'Reilly admits Fox runs right of center:

http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2003/10/14/fox_riddle_p.html

 "According to the Oct. 14th account by reporter Michael Klein of the Philadelphia Inquirer, ?O?Reilly acknowledges that Fox News is right of center.? As far as I know, (the weblog world can correct me) that is a first. Rhetorically speaking, big news. I emailed Klein and he said he didn?t have the quote, but he definitely asked, and O?Reilly answered as written. Things get stranger if this is so." (the article on the Inquirer is now gone, but I've emailed them to see if I can get a copy).

Oh, and:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/9/27/123145.shtml

"When Clinton-loving Rosie O'Donnell appeared on his show, O'Reilly argued, his mostly conservative audience reacted favorably"

seems like a 2nd hand direct quote to me.

As to your position that we aren't discussing "did Bill ever refer to himself as a conservative"...that's just laughable.? ?I've provided proof.? You just don't like it.? Which, of course, is typical of discussions with YOU (al la the "slippery slope" argument).? The man "went out of his way to change it" when the press blew his cover and caused a PR fiasco.? But yet couldn't be bothered to do the sam PRIOR to that (if his ideology changed, which would be tough for you to prove) but had no problem INSISTING that he HAD registered as an Independant? Please....

I might ask YOU the same question about admitting you're wrong.? See the previous discussion ("slippery slope) to see evidence of ME doing just that, when I think it's true.? You, on the other hand, when confronted with OVERWHELMING evidence, did not....

I think my case is strong enough to stand by.

[sandman]

compelling evidence?? come on, bro. let's be real here. it's all second hand and indirect.

and by "ever" i mean relatively recent....like within the last couple years.

and you have not given any proof that bill refers to himself or his show as "conservative". and he certainly does not on a regular basis which your original quote implied.

fox news and factor viewers probably are a little more right leaning??? NO SHIT! 
tell me something the whole world doesn't already know. no one is arguing that, and i don't think anyone would argue that.

[pilferk]

compelling evidence?? come on, bro. let's be real here. it's all second hand and indirect.

Yes, let's be real.

Your evidence is untrustworthy, considering the man's truthfulness on the subject is in question.? Edit: AND he's been shown to say different things depending on the moment.

It might be second hand, and it might be indirect, but it's still compelling.

YOU just don't like it.?YOU have a historical tendancy to ignore evidence YOU don't like.

 Back to ideology and semantics.

and by "ever" i mean relatively recent....like within the last couple years.

LOL, so only look at recent history to prove something because...why, exactly?? Oh, yeah, because using anything further back bolsters my case.? Please.....

And "ever" by the way would mean "ever".....

and you have not given any proof that bill refers to himself or his show as "conservative". and he certainly does not on a regular basis which your original quote implied.

Himself? His voter registration proves otherwise. Matter of public record.? His show?? Maybe not.? His AUDIENCE?? I think there's enough evidence to support that he has made that claim (or rather, acknowledged that fact) when he gets called on it.

As for what my quote "implied"...poppycock.? What YOU implied from reading it, maybe.? But, of course, now that I've provided evidence you HAVE to try to twist the discussion around.

fox news and factor viewers probably are a little more right leaning??? NO SHIT!?
tell me something the whole world doesn't already know. no one is arguing that, and i don't think anyone would argue that.

So, what you're saying then is that you think O'Reilly, and O'Reilly alone, in this whole world, doesn't acknowledge, when faced with hard evidence (like the Pew Research Media Center Study, amongst others), that his audience is conservative?

LOL.

I've made my case, publically, to back up my statement.? I stand by it.

You disagree, obviously.? It's certainly your right to have that opinion.

However, at this point, I think we've reached the functional and useful end of the discussion.

I have no issue with letting the readers of these posts make up their own minds....

[sandman]

i have no idea what BO would say about his audience. cause there's no quotes to support it!

remember you said bill "calls". that's plural. as in more than once. and present tense. not 10 years ago.

his voter registration is currently "independent". he went out of his way to change it!

and i'm not trying to show evidence of anything! you're the one that made a comment that is suspect. and you have failed to prove.

maybe you can find a quote from when he was in grade school to back it up.   

[pilferk]

i have no idea what BO would say about his audience. cause there's no quotes to support it!

No, rather, you don't like the evidence supplied and choose to discount it.? You've done that before, too.

remember you said bill "calls". that's plural. as in more than once. and present tense. not 10 years ago.

Like I said, semantics and ideology.?

And you have a real hard time with time, dontcha.? He changed it in 2000.? 5 Years ago.? And AFTER making claims to the contrary.

and i'm not trying to show evidence of anything! you're the one that made a comment that is suspect. and you have failed to prove.

In your opinion.? Of course, given your historical propensity to ignore contrary evidence, and your bias on the subject....you'll excuse me if I don't lend much credence to it.

maybe you can find a quote from when he was in grade school to back it up.? ?

RIGHT, cause a grade school comment would be remotely the same thing.?

OK, I'm done now.? I've made my points, ad nauseum.? We're just rehashing the same stuff over and over....not very productive, IMHO.