Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by michaello, Sep 2, 2003.
Read it yet? What do you think?
don't have a copy of it. but i have read "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" and thought it informative and a good read.
Check this one out, it'll blow your mind -
It's a stretch of clarity in a world of chaos - funny as hell, too.
I'm in the process of reading it. I just bought the book this past weekend on a trip to St. Louis.
So far, it's been a great read. Thus far, Al has pretty much ripped into Ann Coulter and her ilk with a passion, and exposed several bald-faced lies in the process.
I love this guy's style, and his sense of humor.
What I love is how up in arms the conservatives like O'Reilly and FoxNews got about the book. They can sure dish out the crap, but when the time comes for them to take it, they get completely nutty.
Bill O'Reilly is not a conservative, and should not be lumped with the likes of ULTRA conservative Ann Coulter, and very conservative George Bush. I'm very mad that Franken has taken a cheap shot at one of the great independent thinkers of out time, Bill O'Reilly. Would you be mad if someone put your picture on the front of their book called Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them? That is downright immoral, yet Franken claims to be a 'satarist', so it is fair game. I thought Franken was very funny until he picked a fight with O'Reilly at a book convention based on one small mis-speak of O'Reilly in the 7 years he has been on The Factor. He has lost all of my respect and credibility, although it is a shame since he is right in bringing out the truth about how wrong Ann Coulter and George Bush are. No one can touch the Great Bill O'Reilly, who in my opinion would make the best president if he ran (espically compared to Bush and the 9 dems running now, although Nadar would give him a good run for his money)
found this on salon a few months ago, think it bears repeating:
I enjoyed Bill O'Reilly for a while as well, but ever since Bush 43 was elected, Bill has turned from raking the administration over the coals (which he did admirably, if a little vociferously, during the Clinton years) to being the moral police of our nation. Most of his show is no longer dedicated to "no-spin" analysis of politics, instead we see Bill focusing on those he feels are not of his high moral fiber.
I found this little article that I know was written by the "liberal press" but its not so much opinion as the words that come out of Bill's mouth.
That's just a couple of the good ones. There are lots more if you bother to read the article.
The funny thing about labels like 'liberal' and 'conservative' is its totally subjective. I'm sure that, according to Bill O'Reilly, Bill O'Reilly isn't conservative. But that doesn't have a lot of meaning. I mean I could say that I wasn't liberal, but anyone here who knows my views probably thinks I am.
And thats how it goes with Bill O'Reilly, too. He claims to be completely moderate, fair and balanced, but many people who have heard his opinions and seen his show think otherwise. Those people, and I am in their ranks, think that he is quite conservative and that its a joke that he claims to be moderate, fair or balanced.
For my part, I think the "Great" Bill O'Reilly is a blowhard, a bully and a coward. His "no spin zone" is an excuse to bully and walk over guests who don't share his viewpoint, and little serious debate happens on his show as a result. He also plays very fast and loose with the facts.
As an example, lets take the "altercation" at the book convention that you brought up (and incidently, Fox did as well in their law suit). Franken called O'Reilly on a very legitimate error in O'Reilly's rhetoric: his overstatement of an award he won at Inside Edition. Now, despite O'Reilly's claims, it wasn't a single instance of him lying, rather, it has been well documented that he falsely stated that he had won a Peabody award on many occasions.
O'Reilly screwed up. Period. Now he should apologize to his fans and the public he deceived. But he doesn't.
Also, for all of your denouncements of Franken's actions with his book, you overlook one crucial fact: a judge described Fox's suit against Franken as "totally without merit." Fox has also pulled their lawsuit, presumably realizing that it was without basis. The point? Fox (and you) are wrong in the eyes of the law.
As for morality, I find it comical that you would envoke such a principal in a conversation about Bill O'Reilly. His distortions are well documented on the web. Go here to see many examples of one of his favorite tactics. (Actually, browse the site, you might learn a bit about O'Reilly's tactics and lies).
The tactic goes like this...
Step 1- Use a grossly inaccurate statistic to back a point you are making to a guest.
Step 2- When the guest questions the statistic, become indignant and tell them they are wrong.
Step 3- When the guest again complains, tell them what they are saying is not true. The more vehemently the guest replies, the more caustic you should become.
Step 4- Never repeat the incident again. Never check your facts and report corrections on the next show. And, most importantly, NEVER admit you are wrong.
See, this tactic can't fail. Bill, on national television, tells his guest they are wrong. Who is the audience to believe? Some guest that is trying to "spin" his way out of a tight spot, or the good, caring, ever vigilent, and always looking out for you, Bill O'Reilly. Because O'Reilly never admits when he's wrong and never prints a retraction for a bad statistic or "fact" cited, his audience remains blissfully unaware that O'Reilly was the one "spinning," not his guest.
In my eyes, Bill O'Reilly has lost the right to claim the high moral ground in any argument. His show may as well be staged. He is right up there with Ann Coulter, Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh...only worse. At least those people don't pretend to be un-partisan.
Taft and Mactastic
You present some good points there. O'Reilly does tell lots of people to shut up. On the day of the blackout on the east coast, he told ALL of the politicians to shut up, stop fighting about it, stop pointing fingers at each other and do something about it (using the very words 'shut up'). While he may be fiscally more conservative, he is actually liberal on some social issues. For example, he really is into higher gas mileage, even if it comes out of the expense of the big car companies, because he actually cares about the environment, unlike Rush Limbaugh, who doesn't think global warming is real.
At the book convention, O'Reilly challenged Franken to point out all the bad he has done in his time on the O'Reilly Factor, and the only thing Franken could think of was the time he misspoke about winning the award. Bill was wrong, I admit, and made a fool out of himself there. But the fact is, Franken couldn't pin anything meaningfully wrong down on Bill O'Reilly.
Bill O'Reilly certainly isn't as conservative as Sean Hannity, and doesn't support the Republican Party as most conservatives do. Notice how Hannity is now referring to Bush as "our commander in chief', but NEVER referred to Clinton as such? That is because he is partisan. Bill O'Reilly is not partisan, and does not show such love and admiration towards Bush. He is an independent thinker, and voter, unlike Rush and Coulter who are avid Republicans. I think it is great that Bill is thinking for himself, and not becoming a puppet of a political party.
Yes, O'Reilly is a big bully, and to tell you the truth, thats why I watch! I find conflict intriguing, and if Bill just let every nut preach what they wanted, it wouldn't be The O'Reilly Factor. The show is all about Bill writing a very nice essay at the beginning, and starting crusades (the white prom, NAMBLA, ACLU, Pepsi, etc) that are in the peoples best interest for them to be exploited so the citizens can take action and stop them. I'd love to have him on my debate team, because he is so intimidating, physically daunting at 6' 4", and a hell of a good writer.
Again, I like Al Franken's previous books, and I loved the time he went on Letterman a few years back. He is a very funny man, but he just picked a fight with the wrong person. Why single out Bill O'Reilly to be put with ultra economic, and social conservatives? For an Irish Catholic, O'Reilly is surprisingly liberal in social aspects. In case you missed the time he had a priest and a rabbi on discussing Mel Gibson's new movie 'The Passion', he was so good, and was seriously fair and balanced.
Fox News is clearly a medium that the Bush Administration is using to brainwash the people that watch it, but Bill O'Reilly is the one exception. He is a good guy, who has done a lot of good with childrens issues, is an extremely talented writer, and is very smart (he got his masters from Harvard).
The lawsuit was dismissed by the judge, and rightfully so. It was ridiculous! However, I dont care about the fair and balanced slogan as much as falsely defaming Bill O'Reilly.
Bill O'Reilly is NOT in the same class as Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh on the political spectrum, and is a very misunderstood, humble correspondent. Go OReilly!
maybe Hannity & Colmes would suit you better taft.
Bah! Colmes is such a wus. (Is that how you spell wus???) Occasionally, he pulls a punch or two, but Hannity is obviously the dominating force on that show.
I know some of you guys disagree with me, but I think its a tragedy that Fox can even use the phrase "fair and balanced." It is such an outright lie. The other news channels might be bad about "spinning" the news, but at least they don't plaster "fair and balanced" on the screen while they do it.
You do know O'Reilly has some business relations with Mel Gibson, right? I mean, that's why he's so up in arms about people getting upset about "Passion" and about Gibson in general. Something of a conflict of interest IMHO to allow Gibson to plug his movie left and right on O'Reilly's show as well as to belittle Gibson's critics to try to boost attendance of the movie.
1. What are the business relations (I really don't know)? If it has something to do with FOX, I could care less because I already hate FOX, but if it is personal, thats could be a whole different story. Also, Matt Drudge, who is Jewish (and I believe saw a screening of it?), was talking about this movie a lot on his radio show, and thought it was very good. In fact, so was everyone at the time O'Reilly did because it was the hot news topic at that time!
2. The point was that O'Reilly wasn't so wrapped in ideology that he couldn't accept anyone elses point of view about religion. He did a wonderful job at allowing both a priest and a rabbi to give their thoughts on a very touchy issue of Jesus death. He did a great job at that, and that was such a great thing, especially compared to how the middle east is where people of different religious points of view kill each other, rather then have an excellent discourse, as Bill O'Reilly had successfully facilitated.
I agree with every point you made there! I think it is so funny how the only 'liberal' on fox is a twit like colmes who can't win an arguement, and is overshadowed by the HUGE chin, and neck muscles of sean hannity. By the way, I really can't stand Hannity, in case you didn't catch it from my last post
Quid pro quo? Hard to say, but it sure has the "appearance of impropriety" that Bill hates so much in others.
O'REILLY: I don't want to debate world politics with you.
GLICK: Well, why not? This is about world politics.
O'REILLY: Because, No. 1, I don't really care what you think.
(Of course later in the "interview" he told his guest to "shut up" several times, before he cut his mic. They don't get any humbler then that!)
Wow, I wonder how Bill O'Reilly came to the conclusion that he was dealing with a nut?
Glick was the only one who "Signed an anti war advertisement that accused the USA itself of terrorism" out of all the people who lost relatives in the 9/11 attacks. He was taking his fathers death, and using it to promote a twisted political agenda. It is one thing to be against the war, which O'Reilly is fine with. It is another thing to accuse the United States government of being solely responsible for the 9/11 attacks. It was an intelligence failure, not an intentional failure on our part, but an attack on the terrorists part.
O'Reilly got mad because this punk kid wasn't respecting his father, thats it:
O'REILLY: In respect for your father...
GLICK: On September 14, do you want to know what I'm doing?
O'REILLY: Shut up. Shut up.
GLICK: Oh, please don't tell me to shut up.
O'REILLY: As respect -- as respect -- in respect for your father, who was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed unnecessarily by barbarians...
GLICK: By radical extremists who were trained by this government...
O'REILLY: Out of respect for him...
GLICK: ... not the people of America.
O'REILLY: ... I'm not going to...
GLICK: ... The people of the ruling class, the small minority.
O'REILLY: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of respect for your father. We will be back in a moment with more of THE FACTOR.
GLICK: That means we're done?
O'REILLY: We're done.
You see, you have to put it in context. O'Reilly was respecting his father who was killed by terrorists on 9/11. How much more humble can one get?
I saw that show when it aired, and I have to say Bill shamed himself that day by showing that he simply couldn't debate with anyone who disagreed with him. That was one of the last times I ever watched the show.
I saw it too, and have the sound bite it you want it
Anyway, thats fantastic that you, the viewer, make up your own mind. If you don't like him, don't watch him! I guess not to many people agreed with you, seeing as he has the highest rates in cable news. But lets be real, this guy wasn't there to discuss, he was there to say a calculated speech, and wouldn't even fathom the opposing side, the same way that Sean Hannity, Jessie Jackson, and Ann Coulter do. Since Bill isn't going to take that from anyone, he slammed him down! It should also be noted that he has slammed Jesse Jackson, Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity (on his radio show a few months ago) for preaching an extreme position, without much leeway for opponents. He doesn't like extremists, on both sides of the isle. But, he lays it all out for the viewer to decide, and I guess most people like it.
Still, why does everyone always pick on Bill? He is a very fair guy, with a very clear, and good intentions!
Just as you say this man was using his father's death to promote his agenda, so was O'Reilly.
And look carefullly at what O'Reilly said: "Out of respect for [your father] ... I'm not going to dress you down anymore"
He was saying that he was going to "go easy" on the kid and not rip on him anymore out of respect for his father. Nevermind that the kid could argue for himself or that O'Reilly became enraged when Glick made valid points. O'Reilly envoked the memory of the guy's own father and said he would go easy on him.
And how patronizing can you get. O'Reilly actually used this line: "... I'm sure your beliefs are sincere, but what upsets me is I don't think your father would be approving of this." How the **** does O'Reilly know what this guy's father would approve of?!?!? What a jerk.
Also, so that people can judge for themselves. Here is the full text of the interview.
Thanks for the link!
Well, they have had prior business negotiations, that is an undeniable fact. However that doesn't equate it with conflict of interest, and is not an attempt to bump the audience numbers. First, these are both individuals, not corporations. Second, 'The Passion' and "Those who Trespass' are two completely separate projects, and O'Reilly has nothing to do with 'The Passion'. Next, 'The Passion' isn't going to be a summer blockbuster by any means, no matter what O'Reilly does, he isn't going to pack more people into a theater to see a Jesus movie. Just not going to happen. Finally, Gibson bought the rights to the movie, and although I dont have the contract, normally, Bill would be out of the picture by now, and it is all up to Gibson to make the movie.
O'Reilly was discussing an issue that was both all over the news, and also a very hot topic and issue that he felt he should discuss. He did two or three segments about it, and hasn't done anything about it for a long time. He gave it the same coverage he gave to Jenna Jameson's Pony shoes, so are you going to now accuse Bill of plugging Pony left and right?
Bill O'Reilly was concerned about this movie because if people are uninformed, they might misunderstand it, and could be very offended. Thats why he brought in religious experts of all religions to talk about Jesus death, and how it is portrayed in the movie. Give the man some credit, he has taken a lot of heat for taking on the head of his church (the Pope) and the Catholic Priests who molested children. Furthermore, he provided a great discourse on a hot topic before it could have exploded into religious war in America. Bill OReilly is a good citizen, and exemplary leader.
Looking at the interview's text, Bill makes some pretty outrageous statements.
Glick says: "The people in Afghanistan didn't kill my father."
He's right. The people of Afghanistan didn't kill his father. al Quida did.
But Bill says: "Sure they did. The al Qaeda people were trained there."
Which is a half truth, but doesn't address the point Glick was trying to make.
Bill: "Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this."
WTF??? How does he purport to know the mind or politics of his mother? O'Reilly is taking his own self-righteous indignation with Glick's statements and projecting it onto all of the American people--including this guys own mother and dead father.
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.
O'Reilly completely ignores the man's point. We DID train al Quida members during the 80s in an attempt to combat communism's spread. Does that really have NOTHING to do with 9/11? Is the fact that a victim's son would bring up these issues so abhorrible?
Face it. O'Reilly was a complete *** in this interview. He had every right to argue against this guy's points, but he didn't do that. He ignored his points and basically said, "I'm a bigger patriot than you. I do more to help families of 9/11 than you ever will. I care more about your dead father. So SHUT UP!"
He envoked the memory of his dead father (and his living mother) to shut him up. O'Reilly's position was defensible. It was even the side of the argument I identify most with. But his tactics here, like in many other instances, stink.
1. What is O'Reilly's agenda he was promoting?
2. O'Reilly sees a young misguided kid. This kid is obviously very saddened, and angry over his fathers death (and most understandably so), but he has misplaced his anger to resentment of the establishment. O'Reilly certainly wasn't comforting, but he was being frank, and honest. I remember how pissed off I was on 9/11, and I was enraged at the Taliban. This kids father DIED because of that, and instead of being angry at the enemy, he got caught up in a group of political extremists and is being used to voice their extreme views. I think every American was mad at the terrorists that day (set aside Bush, who won the 2004 election just by being in the right place at the right time), and being that his father was killed by 19 terrorists, who do you think he'd be mad at? The government? No, the TALIBAN! They killed him, and usually it is the killer that people blame. Blaming society or the government doesn't solve anything, and is wrong.
Bill O'Reilly was right to be upset, but since he was so emotional about the issue, he stopped being a professional, and spoke out of rage of the terrorists.
Both O'Reilly and Glick were very upset, and they both could have channeled their anger better in that 'discussion'.