The W
Views: 97578813
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
22.7.07 1644
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - with Bill O'Reilly as Himself
This thread has 4 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2(1847 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (37 total)
redsoxnation
Scrapple
Level: 151

Posts: 1823/7534
EXP: 43285100
For next: 11476

Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 386 days
Last activity: 386 days
#21 Posted on 10.2.03 1318.24
Reposted on: 10.2.10 1318.46

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    God knows I hate Phil Donahue also. I didn't mind him as a talk show host though. And remember, he's MSNBC, and you guys usually complain about CNN, which (at least in my opinion) is far and away the best news channel for actual news.

    My problem is with this whole "celebrity newsman" concept, no matter of what political affiliation. Once you get in the business of selling personalities (Bill O'Reilly, and all the other wannabees on Fox News, Phil Donahue, Geraldo Rivera, Greta Van Susteren, whoever), or cute chicks (Maria Bartaromo, etc...), or whatever, you're no longer in the business of being good reporters. CNN is the only one of these news channels that still focuses on reporting, not selling personalities or ideologies. People tune in to Fox to see O'Reilly be an asshole. People tune in to CNN to see the news.





CNN focuses on reporting? Must have missed that during a Larry King full hour interview with the cast of Will and Grace.
Or during one of those exciting Talk Back Live Shows.
Greta began being sold as a personality when she was on CNN.
Aaron 'I'm golfing' Brown (my dislike for him goes back from the first time I heard his annoying voice) is up there in terms of being ideological.
Can Fox be bad? Yes. Can MSNBC be annoying? Tell me an instance when their not. But don't try to claim CNN has a moral highground and focuses only on the news. Then again, its not like their off-shoot Headline News would hire an actress as an anchor to get ratings. That would never happen under the auspices of Turner/Time Warner/AOL.
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 1040/2091
EXP: 6470773
For next: 179917

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 18 hours
#22 Posted on 10.2.03 1324.02
Reposted on: 10.2.10 1325.51
O’Reilly should have never cut him off! This is how a majority of, as they say, “Anti-American Leftist” crowd hang themselves. No matter what they are arguing, it all goes back to “Bush robbed Gore”.

I don't see that. I see that being somewhat of a sidebar, with his main arguement being

"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. So I don't see why it's surprising..."

Which is true. Which O'Reilly of course ignored throughout the wole thing, preferring instead to speculate about the political views of a dead man he's never met. Wow, that's great journalism there Bill.

(the Military, of course * always * votes Republican ; -) ).

Officers vote mostly Republican. Enlisted generally split 50/50.

And if I have to make the choice between right and wrong, I usually look to the crowd that is willing to die for their cause. Lip Service can only get you so far, you know.

Jesus. Do I have to point out for you who the current "good guys" are under this rationale?

vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 852/2042
EXP: 6246931
For next: 145868

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2941 days
Last activity: 154 days
#23 Posted on 10.2.03 1326.31
Reposted on: 10.2.10 1329.02

    Originally posted by Bizzle Izzle

    But don't forget, Bill agrees with you left wingers on some things. I saw him go on a rant about SUV's, the soccer moms who drive them, and how he's scared driving in his "little" Honda with all the SUV's on the road.



Even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then.

RYDER FAKIN
Six Degrees of Me
Level: 63

Posts: 44/959
EXP: 1999668
For next: 97495

Since: 21.2.02
From: ORLANDO

Since last post: 583 days
Last activity: 22 days
AIM:  
#24 Posted on 10.2.03 1354.09
Reposted on: 10.2.10 1359.03
MoeGates: Jesus. Do I have to point out for you who the current "good guys" are under this rationale?

By all means please do!

FLEA
messenoir
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 9/449
EXP: 640687
For next: 19482

Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 453 days
Last activity: 319 days
AIM:  
#25 Posted on 10.2.03 1549.52
Reposted on: 10.2.10 1553.53
I believe what he's trying to point out are the terrorists who flew the planes into the twin towers. They were willing to die for their cause. So were the Japanese suicide bombers, the Nazis, and basically every other nation attempting to conquer another nation/nations. Dying for your cause is not a good thing if the cause is crap, or if the people willing to die are insane. Having lived on a marine base for more then a few years, I have a few stories about mental problems.
Eddie Famous
Andouille
Level: 90

Posts: 478/2182
EXP: 6917228
For next: 271408

Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 241 days
Last activity: 235 days
#26 Posted on 11.2.03 0527.20
Reposted on: 11.2.10 0527.37
Wait a minute, wait.

Don't project this TV show into anything resembling anyhting other than what it is: a TV show. O'Reilly is an asshole and a choad, but Glick should've known that before he went on with him else he is a complete idiot for not knowing what he was getting into.

When you swim with sharks, folks...
Corajudo
Frankfurter
Level: 58

Posts: 54/810
EXP: 1507273
For next: 70282

Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 7 hours
#27 Posted on 11.2.03 0839.57
Reposted on: 11.2.10 0840.37

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    ... and you guys usually complain about CNN, which (at least in my opinion) is far and away the best news channel for actual news.

    My problem is with this whole "celebrity newsman" concept, no matter of what political affiliation. Once you get in the business of selling personalities (Bill O'Reilly, and all the other wannabees on Fox News, Phil Donahue, Geraldo Rivera, Greta Van Susteren, whoever), or cute chicks (Maria Bartaromo, etc...), or whatever, you're no longer in the business of being good reporters. CNN is the only one of these news channels that still focuses on reporting, not selling personalities or ideologies. People tune in to Fox to see O'Reilly be an asshole. People tune in to CNN to see the news.



So, that's why CNN hired Willow Bay, who garnered extensive financial knowledge and education by hosting NBA Inside Stuff and by modelling, to replace Lou Dobbs as host of their signature financial news program two years ago. (As an aside, Dobbs has since returned and taken over, but the fact remains that Bay was hired for one reason and it wasn't because of her reporting ability.) You can pick on vapid cute chicks, but Maria Bartiromo really knows her stuff. A good general rule is that if they let the financial news reporter or anchor report from the floor of the NYSE without a teleprompter, then they are there for their knowledge and not for their looks.

One my colleagues from work is a Russian lady who lived in the Soviet Union until she was about 40. She said that in the U.S. she reads all different newspapers but never really feels that she knows what is truly going on (and, to a point, I kind of feel the same way). However, when she lived in the USSR, she had a better feel for what was happening because there were two government run newspapers and they could pick up the Voice of American radio feed (and I think Armed Forces Radio). Since she knew the source and bias of each, she felt like she knew exactly what was going on. Anyhow, I thought that was kind of interesting.
asteroidboy
Andouille
Level: 90

Posts: 888/2241
EXP: 7167004
For next: 21632

Since: 22.1.02
From: Texas

Since last post: 1336 days
Last activity: 245 days
#28 Posted on 11.2.03 1133.10
Reposted on: 11.2.10 1135.25

    Originally posted by RYDER FAKIN
    Bush (or the Republican party for that matter) NEVER attempted to “neglect” the Black vote, or any other vote for that matter. IT WAS SEVERAL DEMOCRATIC RUN COUNTIES WITH ANTIQUATED MACHINERY that caused the vote to go awry. Republicans, much less George W. / Jeb, had no control over it. Granted, when it got to the state legislature things got a little heavy handed, but by that time there had been 3 “on the record” counts and numerous unofficial tallys…and to this day, NOT ONE can get Gore within a few hundred votes…and that’s not
    even counting the overseas Military ballots that Gore and his crowd did not want included(the Military, of course * always * votes Republican ; -) ). Maybe Gore should have worried about his “own” state, where his “political legacy” voted REPUBLICAN. (Clinton’s state too.!)…so exactly where
    is this “political coup” these groups keep talkin’ bout?



You're just wrong. Republicans had no control over it? Catherine Harris ring a bell? And are you forgetting the recount that was stopped because of mobs of Republican supporters that were bussed into Florida? That doesn't sound like a coup?

It wasn't until the Republican-led Supreme Court stepped in and said, "you're out of time," that the election was finally given to Bush.

http://www.sptimes.com/News/121300/Election2000/Florida_recount_unfai.shtml

AP did a recount of all the ballots that found that Gore may have won if all the votes had been cast.

http://www.fair.org/activism/ap-recount.html


Granted, he disingenuosly wanted to pick and choose which counties he recounted instead of doing the right thing and re-counting them all, but there's at least some evidence (not to mention that he WON the popular vote) that Gore indeed won Florida and would have carried the state if not for underhanded Republican tactics and a party-controlled state government.

Republicans damn sure would have called it a political coup if it had been their guy coming up short in a state with a Democratic-controlled government.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 940/4700
EXP: 21359609
For next: 477053

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1176 days
Last activity: 973 days
#29 Posted on 11.2.03 1154.39
Reposted on: 11.2.10 1159.04
It's amazing that two years later they still whine that their guy lost...


    Originally posted by asteroidboy
    AP did a recount of all the ballots that found that Gore may have won if all the votes had been cast.

Read this sentence and tell me what you think...

"Bush would stayed ahead under the strictest standards for judging votes, while Gore would have broken on top under the most liberal."

So if they would've FOLLOWED THE LAW, Bush would've won.
asteroidboy
Andouille
Level: 90

Posts: 890/2241
EXP: 7167004
For next: 21632

Since: 22.1.02
From: Texas

Since last post: 1336 days
Last activity: 245 days
#30 Posted on 11.2.03 1208.22
Reposted on: 11.2.10 1213.19

    Originally posted by Grimis
    It's amazing that two years later they still whine that their guy lost...


      Originally posted by asteroidboy
      AP did a recount of all the ballots that found that Gore may have won if all the votes had been cast.

    Read this sentence and tell me what you think...

    "Bush would stayed ahead under the strictest standards for judging votes, while Gore would have broken on top under the most liberal."

    So if they would've FOLLOWED THE LAW, Bush would've won.



Please. Drop the patronizing bit. It's been way more than two years and you are still bitching about Bill Clinton, Grimmis.

I'm saying that Gore MAY have come out on top, had they all been recounted. Of course, that was never an option, given the fact Jeb Bush and Catherine Harris were running Florida and the Supreme Court was Republican. Sandra Day O'Connor was said to be visibly upset when they called Florida for Gore on election night because she wants to retire and wasn't gonna do it under a Democrat president. Yeah, that probably didn't influence her vote.

Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 942/4700
EXP: 21359609
For next: 477053

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1176 days
Last activity: 973 days
#31 Posted on 11.2.03 1238.44
Reposted on: 11.2.10 1243.39

    Originally posted by asteroidboy
    Of course, that was never an option, given the fact Jeb Bush and Catherine Harris were running Florida and the Supreme Court was Republican.

Jeb Bush stayed out of it. Katherine Harris followed the law. So you say they should have knowingly and willingly broke the law to help Al Gore.


    Originally posted by asteroidboy
    Sandra Day O'Connor was said to be visibly upset when they called Florida for Gore on election night because she wants to retire and wasn't gonna do it under a Democrat president. Yeah, that probably didn't influence her vote.



That's the first I heard of that. Show me a credible news source to back that up.

And please, the Supreme Court's vote was influenced when FDR threatened to pakc the bench back in '37 when they ruled against some of his unconstitutional New Deal programs.
RYDER FAKIN
Six Degrees of Me
Level: 63

Posts: 45/959
EXP: 1999668
For next: 97495

Since: 21.2.02
From: ORLANDO

Since last post: 583 days
Last activity: 22 days
AIM:  
#32 Posted on 11.2.03 1258.01
Reposted on: 11.2.10 1259.07
You're just wrong. Republicans had no control over it? Catherine Harris ring a bell? And are you forgetting the recount that was stopped because of mobs of Republican supporters that were bussed into Florida? That doesn't sound like a coup?

I remember very well, I live here. I also remember near violent protests from the criminal element calling people racists. And the protests from the military when Gore didn’t want to count the absentees. And none of that changed the fact that the votes were cast on bogus machines provided by Democratic controlled counties.

It wasn't until the Republican-led Supreme Court stepped in and said, "you're out of time," that the election was finally given to Bush.

AP did a recount of all the ballots that found that Gore may have won if all the votes had been cast.

Granted, he disingenuosly wanted to pick and choose which counties he recounted instead of doing the right thing and re-counting them all, but there's at least some evidence (not to mention that he WON the popular vote) that Gore indeed won Florida and would have carried the state if not for underhanded Republican tactics and a party-controlled state government.


Yep. A “total” recount was rejected by the Gore camp – almost immediately. Sure, there is some evidence he * may * have won – depending on who was doing the counting and based on the counties where the counting was done – but there were no “underhanded Republican tactics”, the votes were already cast (and as a side note: if all would have been counted as meticuosly as the South FL votes, Bush would have won, quite handily - that's documented)Besides, South Florida is notorious for corruption and then filing lawsuits when they don’t get their way. The same thing happened Elections 2k2 - in the same Democratic controlled counties…AFTER the “underhanded” Republican legislature pumped about 10 trillion dollars of tax payer money into fixing polling machines and voting processes that certain people in this state do not * really * want corrected in the first place. The whole “popular vote” thing is a wash – America does not use popular vote to elect the President – it ain’t a popularity contest. Besides, as I mentioned, Gore wasn’t even the most popular in his own state! That’s like partying with the neighbors during a family reunion because your own family hates your guts. At least Bush carried Texas.

Republicans damn sure would have called it a political coup if it had been their guy coming up short in a state with a Democratic-controlled government.

That is most likely correct, but “political double standards can be argued until the cows come home. I guess my whole point originally is it does no good for groups to blame the ills of the world on a “mysterious and devious Republican plot” – I keep hearing that over and over from anyone who is anti-Bush / anti-war, etc…what’s done is done and if people want to protest the war, they have plenty of “valid” reasons, other than blaming Election 2K.

And earlier…

FLEA: And if I have to make the choice between right and wrong, I usually look to the crowd that is willing to die for their cause. Lip Service can only get you so far, you know.

MoeGates: Jesus. Do I have to point out for you who the current "good guys" are under this rationale?

FLEA: By all means please do!

Messenoir: I believe what he's trying to point out are the terrorists who flew the planes into the twin towers. They were willing to die for their cause. So were the Japanese suicide bombers, the Nazis, and basically every other nation attempting to conquer another nation/nations. Dying for your cause is not a good thing if the cause is crap, or if the people willing to die are insane. Having lived on a marine base for more then a few years, I have a few stories about mental problems.


Exactly. But that must be why the “anti-war” groups are calling Americans (me) “the real terrorists” in this whole thing - because I can “identify” with people who die for a cause (misguided or not) much easier than with the hypocrites who call Americans (me) a “terrorist” for smoking pot and owning an SUV. That certainly makes sense, doesn’t it!

FLEA

(edited by RYDER FAKIN on 11.2.03 1400)
asteroidboy
Andouille
Level: 90

Posts: 891/2241
EXP: 7167004
For next: 21632

Since: 22.1.02
From: Texas

Since last post: 1336 days
Last activity: 245 days
#33 Posted on 11.2.03 1332.51
Reposted on: 11.2.10 1333.00

    Originally posted by Grimis
    That's the first I heard of that. Show me a credible news source to back that up.



I think that Newsweek ran the original stories, this a copy of a Reuters feed:

http://www.gwbushwatch.com/reuters1.htm
PeterStork
Sujuk
Level: 64

Posts: 112/1006
EXP: 2155041
For next: 59068

Since: 25.1.02
From: Chicagoland with Hoosiers, or "The Region"

Since last post: 610 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#34 Posted on 11.2.03 2050.16
Reposted on: 11.2.10 2053.02

    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard

      Originally posted by MoeGates
      Back to O'Reilly, I don't understand how this guy is on a news channel. If he were on the WB, I wouldn't have a problem with the guy, but passing him off as anything related to "news," is just ridiculous.


    He's on Fox News. That's a hell of a lot closer to the WB than a news channel.



Hey now! Leave The WB out of this!

I loved O'Reilly's first book. Not everything he says is stellar, but he uses a lot of common sense. However, it pains me to watch the show because I sit there thinking, "Oh, shut up Bill and let him talk." He really has let fame go to his head. I didn't even bother with his second book.
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 106

Posts: 1308/3273
EXP: 12648640
For next: 23344

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 106 days
Last activity: 106 days
#35 Posted on 11.2.03 2347.15
Reposted on: 11.2.10 2350.31

    Originally posted by RYDER FAKIN
    Exactly. But that must be why the “anti-war” groups are calling Americans (me) “the real terrorists” in this whole thing - because I can “identify” with people who die for a cause (misguided or not) much easier than with the hypocrites who call Americans (me) a “terrorist” for smoking pot and owning an SUV. That certainly makes sense, doesn’t it!

    FLEA

    (edited by RYDER FAKIN on 11.2.03 1400)



So if the war protesters were violent, and died for their cause, you'd understand better?

-Jag
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 947/4700
EXP: 21359609
For next: 477053

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1176 days
Last activity: 973 days
#36 Posted on 12.2.03 0609.18
Reposted on: 12.2.10 0616.28

    Originally posted by Jaguar
    So if the war protesters were violent, and died for their cause, you'd understand better?

I know that I'd understand better if they made points besides Bush is bad and Say no to capitalist greed and Legalize Pot. If you articulate a point, it's a hell of a lot easier to get it across.
asteroidboy
Andouille
Level: 90

Posts: 901/2241
EXP: 7167004
For next: 21632

Since: 22.1.02
From: Texas

Since last post: 1336 days
Last activity: 245 days
#37 Posted on 12.2.03 1356.07
Reposted on: 12.2.10 1356.22

    Originally posted by Grimis

      Originally posted by Jaguar
      So if the war protesters were violent, and died for their cause, you'd understand better?

    I know that I'd understand better if they made points besides Bush is bad and Say no to capitalist greed and Legalize Pot. If you articulate a point, it's a hell of a lot easier to get it across.



Hey, in the words of Jon Stewart, it's hard to get a pro-pot rally going because they always degenerate into a game of Ultimate Frisbee
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Pages: Prev 1 2Thread ahead: Is It Time to Bring the Troops Home
Next thread: Anti-War Protestors
Previous thread: Eenie meenie.... (you've gotta be kidding me)
(1847 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - with Bill O'Reilly as HimselfRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.197 seconds.