Bill O'Reilly/Fox News

The voting choices weren't wide enough-just Left to Right. My wife used to watch O'Reilly. I agree with some of his views while totally disagreeing with others.

However, my wife signed up for 1 month in his premium member's site. I was writing on a subject. I was stating my opinion like O'r. does. Next thing I know I get this rude notice from a censor telling me whatever I said was racist.

I know it wasn't, but they threatened to kick me off the boards if it happened. Well, for starts it wasn't even close to being racist. O'reilly is always saying he welcomes truth and opposing opinions. I told my wife this guy is full of s--t. He's always spouting off about being up front and all that hoopala.

Since that night I watched him to see how often he cuts people off. I watched him on numerous occasions NOT allow people to state their opinions or answer his questions. So much for the "no spin zone."

As it turns out we don't get the Fox news channel anymore in the pkg. we subscribe to. Besides, I'd much rather watch The Soprano's re-reuns at 8 PM on HBO. At least they basically live by the rules they've made.

There is no such thing as free speech if a person is NOT allowed to express his/her opinion. I personally can respect anyone's opinion even if I'm 100% against it. So much for that big bag of wind O'reilly. He's NOT honest.

 

The above person hasn't listened to Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, or O'Reilly for that matter.
"Liberals hate God"
"Liberals hate America"
"Feminazis"

And on and on and on and on and on.........

Let's see, what's GW's rating these days ... something like ahm 34%. Wow, what a majority! But then there's those HUGE mandates he won by both times -500,000 votes in 2000. But he did improve in 04, won by the smallest margin any 2nd term president was ever elected by! And with how much from Diebolt?

 

Yes, I had forgotten about Al Franken. I hear him occasionally in debates with Michael Medved, and he does a very good job. It also helps that he's funny (like Bill Mahr and Rush).

 

Of the ones you mentioned, I think only Ann Coulter is equal to the more strident ones on the left that people talk about (such as Maureen Dowd). She does insult the person, whereas the others you list question the beliefs but not the "humanity" of the person.

There are plenty of liberal commentators that don't overtly insult conservatives (Dan Rather, Brian Williams, etc.) One person that I think is truly fair, and seems non-partisan in his interviews, is Tim Russert. I know he worked for Governor Cuomo, and is probably a liberal, but I think he does a very fair job of asking the right questions.

 

AHEM . . . are you referring to this 34%????:

(CBS) The latest CBS News poll finds President Bush's approval rating has fallen to an all-time low of 34 percent, while pessimism about the Iraq war has risen to a new high.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/27/...in1350874.shtml

Do you realize that this “unbiased†(oops, sorry, not their words) poll was:

40.1% Democrat
33.1% Independent
and only
26.7% Republican ???? <_<

How the hell did they find 33.1% “Independents†and could only muster up 26.7% Republican??? :huh:

Don't believe me but you will believe CBS?
Fine, that is where the numbers come from . . . see the bull shit for yourself . . .

Total Respondents 1018
Total Republicans 272
Total Democrats 409
Total Independents 337
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_bush_022706.pdf
(scroll all the way down to the bottom where it was hidden in plain view from those who just read headlines and regurgitate them as unbiased facts)

CBS = B.S.

Ahem . . . TOOL!

 

Well, maybe if people are unhappy with Bush, they are more likely to identify themselves as "Independent" and less likely to identify themselves as "Republican." Just a guess. . .

But, it isn't just this poll. Maybe the 34% is low, but I don't think that anyone could reasonably say that the American people are, on average, happy with the job Bush is doing at this point.

 

Wow, you mean that people at the farthest political extremes have the strongest views on a subject? Why say it ain't so! No brainer there, duh. Listen to anything Ann Coulter says about anyone even remotely left of center, and you get the idea of what nutjobs on the right have to say.

O'Reilly really is a goofball. He makes up issues to tackle (war on Christmas), and dissembles all the way to the bank. For instance, he went on Letterman and talked about an elemetry school that changed the lyrics to "Silent Night". Now fourth graders are launching a visceral attack on Christmas. Several people looked into this, and found out that the lyrics they sung were from a childrens play about a lonely Christmas tree. Furthermore, the play was written by the music director from the same church that Ronald and Nancy Reagan attended. Not a real bastion of anti-christian philosophy.

Now a principled, intelligent nuanced individual, such as myself or Mystery Squid ( :lol: :lol: :lol: ) would have enough guts and out and out manhood to admit: "Golly gee, I didn't have all the information about a subject before I puked my lack of intelligence out all over the national airwaves, and I'm sorry that I mischaracterized a bunch of kids." Not O'Reilly. He repeated the same claim, event though he has got to know by now he was wrong in his initial assertion. Emphasis on the "nice person".

This type of behaivior is technically, and clinically described as "pulling a dick move". Which is what he does on a regular basis on both his television and radio show, and yes I do listen to both from time to time.

Peace,
Cosmo

 

I used to watch O'Reilly quite a bit, but I really don't like to anymore. While I still agree with O'Reilly on many of his points, I don't enjoy his constant cutting people off and such. It is his show and he can do what he wants, but I eventually just got tired of it.

 

He's creeping ever closer to Nixon's all time low number...

 

Keith Olbermann from MSNBC has been having a war of words with Mr. Bill for a while now. I has been very funny. IMHO. The fued even made CNN's show on the media. Olbermann ofen names O'Reilly as his "worst person in the world."

 

Some people are just so idiotic they deserve to be cut off, or they'll simply waste a lot of time. You know, like those people that will argue Iraq was no more a likely "nexus" for terrorist activity than any other country...

 

I like a lot of what he says and disagree with some. He brings up good topics but I don't find him entertaining.
Rush is entertaining and has good topics when he's not whinning.
I listen to national public radio news and enjoy it.
I find Al Frankin to be a liberal Rush wannabe.
For a comedian I find him to be the least funny, predictable spin doctor I've heard.
Every now and then I listen to him thinking he'll get the hang of it and entertain me, but he has yet to.
He never made me laugh on SNL and I'm an SNL fan.
His most funny line fo me was in the movie "Trading Places" was "I think the big gorilla is a male" I still didn't laugh.

 

Maybe you just don't have a sense of humor?

Sorry man, it was sitting right there, I had to take the shot...

 

As O'rilley became more strident in his far right views I enjoyed him less and less. Then in order to increase his falling ratings he began making up issues to spearhead, and he became even less watchable. Finally I had enough when he became so rude to anyone who disagrees with him that not only did I stop watching him, but all of Faux news as they became a cheerleader of the right and Bush instead of just reporting the news. CNN and MSNBC are more entertaining than Faux, but only marginally better. For 'real' and less-biased news, every morning I begin my day reading english language foreign newspapers on the web. When you do this often enough (daily) you begin to recognise which stories are real and which are propaganda. It is refreshing and less nerve wracking to unplug from all US Propaganda no matter which 'side' it serves, and simply use audio and visual media for entertainment and not enlightenment. Naturally, most of what I read via foreign sources is world news which interests me personally more than US-centric 'news' which is really just spin these days. FYI, just as using the 'ignore' button on PC has led me to start my day less agrivated, same with my method of news ingestion. Reading well written articles vs. spin propaganda which insults my intelligence leaves me less aggrivated.

 

The few times I have watched O'Reilly, something about him aggravates me. I do like how both he and Sean Hannity both will say...I'll give you the last word...and then DON'T!

 

Since most of these "pundits" get their talking point off the most recent KarlFAX :wacko: I'm not sure what could be considered entertaining.

Talk show hosts that constantly step on their guests just to keep someone from expressing a contrary opinion are not entertainers, they are propagandists. Franken sometimes gets into this same mode and it makes me just as mad as when it's done by O'Reilly or one of the other immoderate moderators.

My biggest complaint with Tim Russert is that he often fails to follow up with hard questions even though its obvious that his guest is doing nothing but spinning BS. Journalists are suppose to ask the hard questions and not just set there tossing softballs or letting the guest put up a smoke screen. A journalist should stay on the original question to the guest whenever the answer is something that was created as a piece of spin (why don't we call it propaganda instead of spin?). Also, it really irks me when the answer is a non-answer because all it does is push a point of view that furthers the interests of the person being interviewed or their bosses (propaganda). Where is the journalistic integrity in that?

I miss hearing from Helen Thomas at the White House briefings. She is a hard working journalist and is being frozen out because she askes hard questions that people don't want to answer and ducking them is too embarrassing for the person. She asked just as hard questions of Clinton and she wasn't "locked out" then. Obviously, some people feel confident they can engage the media while others just want to shut the media down if the question being asked illustrates a point that is contrary to their doctrine (propaganda).

Without a free and agressive press, democracy is doomed. The press today has been effectively gelded unless they are talking on-point, a.k.a., drinking the cool-aide. Then they can talk as much as they want.

[End-of-Rant]

 

Just ran into this if you don't want to believe the CBS polling data:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186634,00.html

Please note FOX!