Fuck Bill O'Riley

[Azwed]

Jesus christ are you watching his show now?

He has lost all iota of crediblity.

Fair and balanced my fucking ass.

 

[JazzManJim]

He does a commentary show, not a news show.

He does for Fox what Phil Donahue did for MS-NBC and Connie Chung does (albeit under the guise of journalism) at CNN.

 

[Azwed]

He spent the last minute or so of his last two segments just yelling at his guests.

You don't have the right to do this blah blah blah.

Fuck him.

 

[Zurich]

He spent the last minute or so of his last two segments just yelling at his guests.

You don't have the right to do this blah blah blah.

Fuck him.

Fuck you. Watch the Disney Channel if you don't like O'Reilly.

 

[JazzManJim]

He spent the last minute or so of his last two segments just yelling at his guests.

You don't have the right to do this blah blah blah.

Fuck him.

Yep, that's true, just as the Crossfire bunch does, and the McLaughlin Group does.

But was he correct? Did his opinions have solid fact behind them?

Those, I think, are the important questions.

 

[Azwed]

He spent two yelling at some proffessor telling them that no one has the right to protest during the war in case there are terroist attacks.

 

[Azwed]

Yep, that's true, just as the Crossfire bunch does, and the McLaughlin Group does.

But was he correct? Did his opinions have solid fact behind them?

Those, I think, are the important questions.

At least crossfire has someone from each side. To be honest I rarely watch crossfire though. Now that we have digital cable here it is all Fox news all the time because of my roommate.

Its pretty obvious how biased Fox is just by looking at their audience members.


He rarely has facts behind his shit and I have heard him on many times just be flat out wrong.

He won't ever admit that but he often is just wrong.

 

[HeavyStick]

Fuck Bill O'Reilly.


He may address good points at times, but he's a rude prick who doesn't let other people finish their sentence.

 

[Azwed]

Fuck Bill O'Reilly.


He may address good points at times, but he's a rude prick who doesn't let other people finish their sentence.

That he is fucking asshole.

 

[Bob_Bytchin]

FOX News is fair and balanced


If the balance point is about here:

<--------------------------X-->

 

[JazzManJim]

At least crossfire has someone from each side. To be honest I rarely watch crossfire though. Now that we have digital cable here it is all Fox news all the time because of my roommate.

Its pretty obvious how biased Fox is just by looking at their audience members.


He rarely has facts behind his shit and I have heard him on many times just be flat out wrong.

He won't ever admit that but he often is just wrong.

I'll debate you on that last point. From my observations of various television commentators, he is extremely accurate.

And he has been known to apologize publicly when he was not.

And it's not as easy as you believe to decide bias based on viewership anymore than it is to decide the temperature of a glass of water based on how many people drink it.

And you weren't entirely accurate about his protestor statement. He said that in a time of heightened demand for scarce law enforcement personnel, it is dangerous and should be illegal to force them to deal with a voluntary protest which would take them away from their more important security demands.

 

[mbb308]

I saw a segment on "Biography" about O'Reilly a few weeks back. I happened on it by accident, and, like a car wreck, I watched for a while.

He considers being 6'-4" tall one of his best assets. I think that was a genetic accident. He sure didn't do it.

 

[celiaKitten]

I'll debate you on that last point. From my observations of various television commentators, he is extremely accurate.

<snip>

And you weren't entirely accurate about his protestor statement. He said that in a time of heightened demand for scarce law enforcement personnel, it is dangerous and should be illegal to force them to deal with a voluntary protest which would take them away from their more important security demands.

Which are, exactly that, your observations. But, his accuracy doesn't hinge upon other television commentators at all. In that case, each stands on their own.

And, if that was his statement - it's merely a euphamistic way of suggesting a stifling of protest. Anyone on either side of the argument should find that suggestion appalling at the very least.

 

[Bob_Bytchin]

Bill O'Reilly is 6'4?....so is this:

 

[miles]

Fuck Bill O'Reilly.


He may address good points at times, but he's a rude prick who doesn't let other people ....

Oh, shut the fuck up.

Hehe.

 

[celiaKitten]

miles, was that a giggle?

 

[Zurich]

Fuck off and

Watch SpongeBob for fair and balanced.

 

[mbb308]

Bill O'Reilly is 6'4?....so is this:

Looks like Bill McPaddy.

 

[celiaKitten]

Dude, you are, like, so good at this stuff.

 

[JazzManJim]

Which are, exactly that, your observations. But, his accuracy doesn't hinge upon other television commentators at all. In that case, each stands on their own.

And, if that was his statement - it's merely a euphamistic way of suggesting a stifling of protest. Anyone on either side of the argument should find that suggestion appalling at the very least.

Which is to say that you discount them?

My observations involve comparing his accuracy to the accuracy of other commentators. He is extremely accurate compared to most, if not all, the other commentators I've seen. He has to. he routinely challenges both Republican and Democrat points of view and draws considerable fire from each side. If he weren't accurate, he'd be routinely shredded, which he rarely is.

And that was pretty much his statement. His contention is that at times protests become a matter of public safety and should be dealt with as such. Having worked in that field for quite a while, I can see the merit to the argument.

 

[Azwed]

I saw a segment on "Biography" about O'Reilly a few weeks back. I happened on it by accident, and, like a car wreck, I watched for a while.

He considers being 6'-4" tall one of his best assets. I think that was a genetic accident. He sure didn't do it.

My roomate has O'Riley's biography and I remember him mentioning that too.

 

[celiaKitten]

Which is to say that you discount them?

My observations involve comparing his accuracy to the accuracy of other commentators. He is extremely accurate compared to most, if not all, the other commentators I've seen. He has to. he routinely challenges both Republican and Democrat points of view and draws considerable fire from each side. If he weren't accurate, he'd be routinely shredded, which he rarely is.

And that was pretty much his statement. His contention is that at times protests become a matter of public safety and should be dealt with as such. Having worked in that field for quite a while, I can see the merit to the argument.

No, not that I discount your observations. What I meant was that you cannot tell the accuracy of a commentator merely be viewing others.

And, as you well know, what one says is 'fact' may or may not be. So, one person's definition of accuracy, especially when referring to a commontator, isn't going to catch the cow..lol.

And, I have to disagree with that last point. Imagine the tables were turned, and we had a president and congress that refused to go to war, in spite of an even larger threat. Would you feel differently about your right to protest that government's actions being taken?

The *public safety* argument is merely an excuse, and a poor one at that. It can very well be argued that some of Bush's actions have been a far greater thread to public safety.

It's all in the eye of the beholder .. yes, I know. But there is never a reason good enough to me to take away anyone's right to gather and protest a government action.

 

[mbb308]

My roomate has O'Riley's biography and I remember him mentioning that too.

The last guy I worked with who thought being that tall was a big deal was compensating for his stupidity.

Billy ain't dumb - he just lacks humility. At least he's found a market for it. The puke makes about $4M annually.

 

[Azwed]

It's all in the eye of the beholder .. yes, I know. But there is never a reason good enough to me to take away anyone's right to gather and protest a government action.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

[JazzManJim]

No, not that I discount your observations. What I meant was that you cannot tell the accuracy of a commentator merely be viewing others.

And, as you well know, what one says is 'fact' may or may not be. So, one person's definition of accuracy, especially when referring to a commontator, isn't going to catch the cow..lol.

And, I have to disagree with that last point. Imagine the tables were turned, and we had a president and congress that refused to go to war, in spite of an even larger threat. Would you feel differently about your right to protest that government's actions being taken?

The *public safety* argument is merely an excuse, and a poor one at that. It can very well be argued that some of Bush's actions have been a far greater thread to public safety.

It's all in the eye of the beholder .. yes, I know. But there is never a reason good enough to me to take away anyone's right to gather and protest a government action.

Okay, then I think you misunderstood what I said. I wasn't comparing the commentators' accuracy against each others' facts. I compare whether they are factual in and of themselves and I find O'Reilly considerably more factual than all but a very few.

As to your other question, yes I would feel the same way. The argument does have merit from a public safety point of view, regardless of our opinions on it. Public Safety already impacts the right to assembly and protest in the form of needing permits to have a protest. It is not such a stretch to say that at this point in time it would be a valid public safety issue for a city to issue a moratorium against protests for a defined period of time.

But that wasn't entirely what prompted the segment by O'Reilly. he was talking about a protest in DC where police were not initially required because it was orderly and respectful. Police had to be called in when protestors began to impede traffic and to put themselves and others in danger. That was an unnecessary action and required that police had to be pulled away from other duties to handle it. That is, to me, a valid public safety issue.