One of the meny reasons i hate bill O'rielly

Taichan · #1 06-03-2006, 07:18 PM

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?...d&f=00&fg=copy

sorry about only being a link, not sure how to do more.

thats from countdown and showin Billy O rewriting history for the second time in 8 months

mike · #2 06-03-2006, 07:31 PM

Taichan,

This is an excellent example of why MSNBC is the lowest rated news agency in cable. This is also why Bill O'reilly is the #1 and has 10 times the viewers that Olbermann has.

Bill O'Reilly said a simple sentence and Obermann spent 10 minutes explaining how O'reilly rewrites history. Isn't it funny that MSNBC is attacking Fox News? They are giving FREE press time to O'Reilly. This is what made Howard Stern so popular. People who like Howard Stern listened to him for 30 minutes, people that hated him listened for 2 hours.

Also, Olbermann starts of cynical and slanderous, not a great way to debate. O'Reilly is so popular, people like Olbermann are hanging on his every word.

Obermann should learn from Phil Donahue. Phil lasted about 1 year and MSNBC because he kept leaning towards the left. Well, 40% of Americans identify themselves as conservative and 40% are somewhere in the middle. Fox News targets that 80% while CNN and MSNBC pander to the 20%. Maybe Business 101 was not taught at their university.

Taichan · #3 06-03-2006, 08:08 PM

Mike,

O'reilly is a an a$$hole, i like Olbermann, i like his show, i just like it in general.

My mom watchs O'rielly just to see what he ****s up with for the day, just because he is the most watched doesn't make him the best.

i personally don't watch O'reilly just because he annoys me so ****ing much!

but then again, i'm a "left wing nut" because i don't agree with everything the govermetn does.

but even if you look at is. what he way saying is "we've done this in the passed so everything is ok"

by that logic having slaves is ok because we've done it in the passed

i wonder if i can get AFN to pick up canadian news -.-

Parisok · #4 06-03-2006, 10:09 PM

I do not watch him very much but I find it Ironic that he call it the "No Spin Zone" It should be spinning hard to the right zone. He is not popular other News casters as he stepped on many on his way up Yes he is Arrogant and Pompous but I think many watch him for the same reason they watch NASCAR waiting for the wreck.

sejongeb · #5 06-03-2006, 11:16 PM

Olbermann should of stayed @ ESPN. He was funny and entertaining for a sports dude. O'Reilly maybe have a huge following, but he can not stand his own against Al Franken. The two met @ some LA book signing event and got into it CSPAN. Billy boy started out tough, but Al stood his ground. Billy boy didn't fair to well outside his controlled environment @ Fox News.

If you notice that certain guests, regardless of political stance, don't get badger like some of the weaker ones. That would make him a punk. The sexual harassment allegation did little to him. If he had nothing to fear, he wouldn't of settled out of court. I'm sure someone in this forum will state that settlements don't mean guilt. It doesn't mean innonce either. I have an idea for the next celeb boxing on Fox: Olbermann v. O'Reilly!

mike · #6 06-04-2006, 06:33 AM

Quote:

but even if you look at is. what he way saying is "we've done this in the passed so everything is ok"

by that logic having slaves is ok because we've done it in the passed

Taichan, you are taking his comments completely out of contect. O'Reilly never stated that "Since we did it in the past, it is ok now." This is why I dislike Obermann. He is jeluos and attacks O'reilly.

Do you honestly believe Bill O'Reilly feels American Soldiers should be aloud to kill civilians because we did it in the past? I suggest watching the entire O'Reilly/Gen Clarke interview and not 5 seconds of the 4 minute exchange.

mike · #7 06-04-2006, 06:43 AM

sejongeb,

Are you serious? Al Franken? I don't care much for O'Reilly, but Al Franken is a dispicable Weasle. I watched an interview with him and Chris Mattews where Mathew's asked him questions about his book. Mathews pointed out 3-4 major errors in Franken's book. Franken seemed clueless about his own book and said, "well, you make some good points and I will research more and remove the errors in the next edition."

Franken and Moore are smear kings. Their books have a non-existant bibliography, which means they do little research and just talk opinion.

mike · #8 06-04-2006, 06:52 AM

Here is some great news for Al Franken:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=49948

Looks like almost monthly, his radio show is failing. Most recently, Air America lost New York city, the #1 place to be and not known for being conservative.

Doutdes · #9 06-04-2006, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike

Taichan, you are taking his comments completely out of contect. O'Reilly never stated that "Since we did it in the past, it is ok now." This is why I dislike Obermann. He is jeluos and attacks O'reilly.

Do you honestly believe Bill O'Reilly feels American Soldiers should be aloud to kill civilians because we did it in the past? I suggest watching the entire O'Reilly/Gen Clarke interview and not 5 seconds of the 4 minute exchange.

Mikes right, O'Reilly didn't say that it was okay for US Soldiers to attack civilians. O'Reilly said that this one incident doesn't have any broader meaning for the rest of the military in Iraq. He argues that killings happen in every war and that those killings don't have broader implications for those wars, why is it a broader implication in this war. You can certainly disagree with him, I do, but he isn't saying it's okay.

However, that's not why Olbermann spent this segment on O'Reilly. It was because of this gem:

Quote:

And in Malmedy, as you know, U.S. forces captured S.S. forces, who had their hands in the air. And they were unarmed. And they shot them down. You know that. That's on the record. Been documented.

And Iwo Jima, the same thing occurred. The Japanese attempted to surrender, and they were burned in their caves.

For one, O'Reilly thinks the killing of POW's or civilians is the same as refusing surrender for enemy combatants. It's not the same thing, and it's wrong to slander soldiers refusing to take prisoners with killing 3 year old children.

Secondly, MALMEDY. To support that his belief that specific massacres do not indicate broader problems he refers to Malmedy. Where, in O'Reilly's world, it was Americans you killed unarmed Nazis after they had surrendured and were taken into custody. The truth is that Nazi SS killed over 70 US POW's. This is the second time he's said this, so many people don't think it's a simple mistake.

I have to say that I am confused why Mike is defending O'Reilly so passionately on this one. O'Reilly's wrong and he's comparing US troops to Nazis. It's similar to saying that US forces drug corpses of enemy combatants in the streets of Somalia, when in fact the opposite happened. If Olbermann or Franken made a similar mistake, I doubt Mike would be so forgiving.

mike · #10 06-04-2006, 12:07 PM

Excellent comments and research Doutes.

I am not defending O'Reilly as much as I am attacking Obermann's technique. It looks like O'Reilly has made this mistake twice now. Does it warrant a full segment on MSNBC? It looks like free airtime for O'Reilly. Obermann comes off mad and childish. That was fine when he was covering sports, but not so sure it works well in news commentary. O' Reilly also made the same mistake with Al Franken and all that does is ruin your credibility as a calm and collective debater.

Mike

Forums	Arcade	Gallery	Links	Register	FAQ	Members List	Calendar
Classifieds	Articles	Quizzes	Search	Today's Posts	Mark Forums Read