Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MontyZ, Oct 18, 2005.
Honestly, I don't know why people are so angry at Bill. Yeah he's a bit of blowhard but I think that's a bit of an asset in the business that he's in.
The liberal media is so hot to find a hint of hypocrisy in anyone proclaiming some morality. It's bizarre.
I believe everyone has a level of hypocrisy. Some more overtly arrogant than others.
Because he's a compulsive liar?
Yeah, you reap what you sow. Go read Media Matters or Crooks and Liars. You can call them what you want, but all they're doing is pointing out what these people say. As opposed to Bill, who pretends to be fair to both sides when he isn't, and as IJ put - he is a liar. Not just wrong, but an out-and-out, compulsive, lying, liar.
Plus he's a pervert. Falafel?
O'Reilly is not a liar and can't be because his show is opinion and commentary. The only way that he could be lying is if his show wasn't really his opinion, which would be pretty silly. If you think his show or Lou Dobbs (Dobby) is news, you're getting upset for completely the wrong reasons. They are both opinion shows.
I like both shows, not because I always agree with either of them, but because sometimes I do, sometimes I don't, and listening to their justifications helps me decide where I stand on the issues. I also like the McLaughlin group, even though I don't agree with anybody on there, and read the Economist, which is maybe the only people I agree with more than 70% of the time (British pro-market centrists). if you just want news alone, with no opinion or analysis, you should stick to a couple good newspapers and throw away the opinion pages.
How can you lie in opinion? "I hate Bush". Oh, I'm lying, I really love him and want to be his next supreme court nominee.
Poetic justice...I hope he chokes on all the vitriol, fear and hate he has spewed for years...Wake up tristan, he regularly quotes or portrays info as factual which has been proven to be blatantly untrue or misrepresented many times. His show is far from just personal opinion or commentary.
Start with these links as topics for research, if you think this webpage is too biased, then do some of your own research into the topics listed on the page and come to your own conclusions.
Bill O' Reilly consistantly twists, misrepresents and distorts the truth.
O'Reilly lies, man. Watch his show once or twice. He backs up his opinions with facts he pulls out of his ass (aka lies).
Lies and the lying liars who tell them.
Not enough? There's more.
Despite any belief to the contrary, it is possible to lie on an opinion show. When O'Reilly claims that 50% of Americans pay no federal tax, that is a lie. That isn't his opinion, it's a falsehood. When he claims that he retracts anything that isn't true, that is also a lie.
I'd guess there would be a lot of conservative who would take umbrage with me claiming that Michael Moore can't be lying because it's all his opinion.
Well, I take it as opinion, and yes, I do take Michael Moore as opinion too. When BO calls half the guys on his show "nuts, loons, wackos, etc" I have to assume that that's opinion and the rest probably is too.
But I have better things to do then defend O'Reilly I guess, considering I don't agree with a lot of his opinions or watch him that much anymore. By the way, Steve Colbert (on the first Colbert report) did a great impression of O'Reilly on his show last night.
Bush is an *******. He tortures puppies for fun and eats babies for lunch.
By the way, BO is not too far off in his statement that 50% of people don't pay federal income taxes.
In 2004, there were 131m income tax returns filed, and 42.5m paid no taxes. Also, 15m people didn't have to file, because they were below the legal minimums. (42.5+15)/(131+15) = 39.3% of households that pay no federal taxes. Then you have to convert households to people, which gets you closer to 50% (because of kids etc). It's not exactly 50%, but it's still pretty high. They do pay social security taxes, of course.
Not saying this to defend BO (because he was wrong), but because most people don't know the numbers and it is pretty astonishing how many people don't pay federal taxes.
But that's just your opinion, right?
i can do him one better. when i pay my taxes, it's really just my eyes, brain and hands doing the work. that's why less than 50% of my body weight.
the second part, probably.
And from what trust fund does the federal government habitually draw cash to cover its own shortfalls?
The notable thing about O'Reilly isn't just his habit of playing fast and loose with facts, which a lot of people do, but the way he denies having said things once he's caught committing a deceit, even when it's right there on tape for all to see and hear. As anyone who's met one knows, this is the classic behavior of a pathological liar. They are missing that part of their intellect which allow them to understand when they've been caught in a lie, so they lie again, and again. The man is clinical. No self-respecting network would allow him on the air. But then, I suppose that's why he's on FOX.
The first part was, and that was your cue to assume the rest of it probably was also.
the worst part for o'reilly is all this attention has really eaten into his "sexual harassment" time... he can hardly make an unwanted sexually explicit call with all the extra security he has around him.
I try to ignore most newscasters, as it's true that much of their 'opinion' is skewed facts. However, there's something about O'Reilly's smarmy attitude that really rubs me the wrong way. If there's someone on the show who he doesn't agree with, he continually cuts them off. But, that's true for many hosts these days. Especially Nancy Grace, who I believe is a horrible show host, and is rude to her guests, too.
Exactly. Fudging the facts is one thing, but to outright deny that have erred is another, particularly when evidence to the contrary is presented.
Let's look at this BoR statement:
Ok, so he starts with something that is arguably his opinion, that "The Factor" is the most successful broadcast concept in the past decade in this country. Fine, that's his opinion. But how about the second part? Is it his opinion that the NYTimes has never done a story on him, or is that a verifiable fact?
I'd say it's pretty easily verifiable that the Times DID write about "The Factor" several times in fact. And this wasn't some off-the-cuff remark, this was a prepared memo. I don't know about you, but that smells like a lie to me.
I wonder if it was just Clinton's opinion that he never had sex with that woman...
I also liked when he claimed to be an independent, even after his voter registration form was published, which clearly indicated his party choice as "Republican." I don't recall his precise prevarication, but it amounted to "I didn't know." Riiight.