| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 2/19/2007 8:17:02 AM | "Media Matters for America is a politically progressive, web-based, non-profit organization that reports and criticizes what it describes as "conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."[1] O'Reilly is often the subject of Media Matters' online reports, which criticize O'Reilly for what they describe as partisanship and selective coverage. O'Reilly has referred to Media Matters as "smear merchants," and "the most vile, despicable human beings on the planet," and has expressed distaste for the site because he claims it is funded by wealthy liberal George Soros.[2]
Media Matters founder David Brock claims that he has repeatedly requested that O'Reilly permit him on O'Reilly's program and that O'Reilly has refused. Media Matters also claims that O’Reilly has not been able to specifically challenge the accuracy of Media Matters’s reporting"
Hmmmmmm......won't let the "vile, despicable liberal" on his show.
Sound fair and balanced?
"O'Reilly's complaints towards MSNBC continue to not mention Keith Olbermann or Countdown. However, when a caller mentioned Olbermann's name on O'Reilly's radio show March 2, 2006, O'Reilly appeared to have promptly disconnected him and responded, "We have your phone number, and we're going to turn it over to Fox security, and you'll be getting a little visit." O'Reilly then said, "When you call us, ladies and gentlemen, just so you know, we do have your phone number. And if you say anything untoward, obscene, or anything like that, Fox security will then contact your local authorities, and you will be held accountable". The exact comment of the caller that prompted O'Reilly to disconnect the caller and state that Fox security would be sent to him is unknown because all calls to live radio programs are screened in advance and aired at the discretion of the call screeners, and the station has not released the caller's comments in full.[9]"
BOR calls Fox security on a caller that dared mention Keith Olberman's name when calling BOR's show.
Sound fair and balanced?
"While not a fierce or long-standing critic, conservative pundit Tucker Carlson has occasionally criticized O'Reilly's statements as being "over the top". One statement Carlson criticized was O'Reilly's claim, on air, that he is an "intellectual" and rejects adopting a macho attitude to solve problems, while on the same program, advocating the "bulldozing", "demolition" and "complete destruction" of Fallujah.[23]"
Even Tucker Carlsen thinks BOR goes to far with his conservative rhetoric....that's like the Grateful Dead telling someone they do too many drugs.
"O'Reilly uses his position as the centerpiece of Fox News' prime-time lineup to serially misinform his audiences, consistently skewing his presentation to advance conservative viewpoints (though he did admit on July 19, 2004, that Fox News "does tilt right")."-mediamatters
At least BOR CAN admit that Fox News "leans right".....if by lean he means complete tilt.
"O'Reilly frequently denounces "cowards" who refuse to face him on-air, saying, for example, "If you attack someone publicly, as these men did to me, you have an obligation to face the person you are smearing. If you don't, you are a coward." But O'Reilly has repeatedly attacked Media Matters while refusing Media Matters President and CEO David Brock's request to appear on The O'Reilly Factor."
BOR is the bully.....and a coward.....and will say anything to support his conservative agenda, all the while claiming to be independent.
I doubt any of you who seem to think he is "fair" will look at the mediamatters site(which BTW includes commentary on Olbermann, Imus, Colmes, and plenty other "libs" as well as conservatives). If you did look, you wouldn't be so quick to defend this man.
Or maybe you would.......sadly. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 2/19/2007 6:06:34 PM | I like him because he agrees with me on most matters. Sometimes he's a little too liberal, trying to garner support from the left to get more viewers I suppose. But the more who watch the better -- all should be able to get a more balanced view of the world. He makes mistakes. So do I. I would guess we all make mistakes. Wow! That would make us all human!  | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 2/19/2007 6:40:08 PM | "Sometimes he's a little too liberal, trying to garner support from the left to get more viewers I suppose."
Oops! You seem to have posted to the wrong thread. This one is about Bill O'Reilly. Not sure who YOU'RE talking about.
"But the more who watch the better -- all should be able to get a more balanced view of the world."
Okay, we give up! Who are you talking about? | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 2/20/2007 5:47:16 AM | "I like him because he agrees with me on most matters"
You mean on things like when he said he thought the Hornbeck kid was "enjoying" his captivity by a man now charged with 71 counts of forcible sodomy?
"Sometimes he's a little too liberal"
Heard BOR called quite a few things but never "too liberal"....are you sure you know what liberal means?
"But the more who watch the better -- all should be able to get a more balanced view of the world."
All the horrible comments by BOR, the sexual harrassment suits, the threatening of callers.....and all you have to say in his defense is..."he's human, we all make mistakes".
One or two instances of his bigotry and hatespeech can be dismissed.....but they are a daily occurence on his show. I have watched him...I often flip back and forth between him and Olberman to get differing viewpoints....BOR sickens me......the very idea that there are people in the US who think he's a good guy sickens me perhaps even more. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 2/20/2007 10:16:23 AM | My Fav......The BOR boycott of France. He single handed brought ruin to France. He even used the "Paris Business Review" for the record> too bad there is no such source.........
When he sued Franken (and was laughed out of court) for "Lies" The suit was not for content.......... it was for "Fair and Balanced"....... | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 2/22/2007 6:11:02 PM |
A good example of why I watch Bill O'Reilly whenever I want a good laugh.
Sept 19, 2005 - Bill O'Reilly - The O'Reilly Factor
"Under President Clinton the tax rate climbed higher than at any time in history excepting World War two."
- reality: 1954 - 1963 for people earning $300-$400k/year the federal tax was 90%.
1955 - for people earning $44-$52k/year the federal tax was 59%.
Sept 19, 2005 - Bill O'Reilly - The O'Reilly Factor
"Federal Tax Revenues will be more this year than at any time during the Clinton administration."
- fed tax revenues 2005 $2.142 trillion. in 2000 $2.025 trillion. However, these numbers are not adjusted for inflation. If you adjust the 2005 number for inflation, it's not $2.142 trillion, it's $1.8 trillion.
Sept 19, 2005 - Bill O'Reilly - The O'Reilly Factor
"Clinton raised taxes every single year."
- reality. Clinton raised taxes once, in 1993.
Sept 19, 2005 - Bill O'Reilly - Bill O'Reilly
"....there wasn't a Federal Income Tax until the turn of the century."
- reality, a Federal Income Tax was enacted in 1861 during the civil war. It was phased out in 1872.
I only read the first two pages. ErikSFBay shows no sources for his post.
I am sure on his post he wrote down every event and checked up on it, or he got it from somewhere and believed it hook line and sinker.
All I can say is don't believe everything you read here on POF. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 2/22/2007 9:07:25 PM | All I can say is don't believe everything you read here on POF.
--------------------------------------
I only trust and refer to the "Paris Business Review" They have the the Facts "BOR"...... | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 2/22/2007 9:23:15 PM | "All I can say is don't believe everything you read here on POF."
Naturally! We'll certainly keep that in mind while reading anything you post. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 2/23/2007 4:11:46 AM | To be a POF Lemming here are the rules.
Rule #1. If someone typed it. It must be true. No source necessary.
Rule #2. If you do not beleive it read Rule #1. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 2/23/2007 4:48:49 AM | | Rule #3 if somebody asks you for a source, act as if they are being irrational. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 2/23/2007 4:14:25 PM | " Rule #3 if somebody asks you for a source, act as if they are being irrational. "
...or a traitor/terrorist sympathizer. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/9/2007 6:56:48 PM |
Rule #1. If someone typed it. It must be true. No source necessary.
Rule #2. If you do not beleive it read Rule #1.[/quote'
isn't that what Fox news and many others are based on?
the only thing bill (small b) is good at is being loud and disruptive, turning the mike off of a guest if they make too much sense and implying that if you're not a republican then you must be "pro terrorism"
I don't know who should be assinated first..bush, rumsfiels (sp) cheyney, rice and many more | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/9/2007 8:02:49 PM |
I don't know who should be assinated first..bush, rumsfiels (sp) cheyney, rice and many more
None of them. It would just make things worse. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/9/2007 10:17:07 PM | I wouldn't advocate the killing of any of them. That just makes them a martyr, and frankly lowers yourself to around their level.
The idea of a war crimes trial on the other hand makes me hot and bothered.
It won't happen either, lets just hope the Republicans get a thorough drubbing in 08 | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/10/2007 1:31:29 PM | grog, been doing a little too much grog lately? whats your solution to iraq?
peter | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/10/2007 1:35:54 PM | cavalier, you are cavalier with your facts....soros is the funding for media matters, an organization that bullies the media.
nbc and msnbc rarely, occasionally have a balanced debate between conservative and liberal...most of their programming is matthews and olberman holding court with their liberal buddies knocking the conservatives....at least fox HAS a stable of lefties; geraldo, colmes, juan williams, mara liason, etc.....youll almost always see some balance versus the product nbc/msnbc or cnn put out.
peter | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/10/2007 10:39:07 PM | @handsomedevil - fyi, very few news organizations are made up of conservatives. Those who graduate from journalism schools are by and large liberals - that IS a liberal arts degree they're sporting after all. Those who run the newsrooms rose up from those ranks, they're liberals too. And as for the owners, and speaking as one who owned newspapers and has a bit of experience in a newsroom, editorial decisions are largely made in the editorial offices, not in the boardroom.
In Canada, for example, almost all o f our major news networks are liberal oriented - Toronto Star being the most notable, although their recent coverage of the provincial election was suprisingly even handed compared to their normal blind support of liberals.
The same goes in the US - the majority of news organizations are liberal - the New York Times, CBS, Dan (Bl)Rather et al...the more important issue is that journalists have, by and large, forgotten their mission, which is to report facts and let the reader - or in today's parlance, the news' consumer, make up their own mind.
As for weapons of mass destruction not being found - it was apparent even to Clinton's administration and liberals in general that they were, at some point, there. Otherwise, why all the crying before the war that, if America went to war, the troops would face....are you ready for this...weapons of mass destruction! Named in particular were various biological and chemical weapons as I recall, all given as reasons to keep American troops out of Iraq and harm's way.
You can't have it both ways, although that is how liberals generally like to do it. Don't buy that last comment? Look back and read copies of almost any major newspaper from the time of the debate. You'll see what I mean. WMD everywhere and a danger to American forces and those comments come from the left.
p.s. any network that has to lie about what they are lacks my trust. That should be common sense. - fyi, I don't see the NY Times or CBS telling the world that they are shills for the Great - or is that grating -- Hilary. Do you now not trust them?
Join the real world - 'fair and balanced' reporting, even when it isn't, is the claim of every news organization, conservative or liberal. You think they would claim otherwise? Now THAT should be comment sense. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/10/2007 10:56:25 PM | ahhhhh....charles, charles, charles...this would be the Charles from another thread who couldn't read anything that was on the right side of the page because he's another left winger? Charles, for all the arguments you put up in that recent spate of Bush bashing, I don't once remember you citing a source for your drivel.
I so look forward to your citing sources for the facts you use to bolster your arguments in the future and not acting irrational. Let's just try to pick some site more balanced than one supported financially by a left winger like Soros. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/10/2007 11:07:14 PM |
As for weapons of mass destruction not being found - it was apparent even to Clinton's administration and liberals in general that they were, at some point, there.
Indeed there were. They were gone long before the invasion, though. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/10/2007 11:38:15 PM | | And we should have know that they were gone how?... Would that be because weapon inspectors were not allowed to inspect and that of course means there is nothing to inspect right.? Come on .. you can't have it both ways they were there or not.. you say they were there and intel said they were there.. Bill said they were there.. (thats the president.. and he would of course be privy to such intel) Hilary (smartest woman in america) said they were there and she would also know. I can't think of any more credible sources.. Oh yeah United Nations said they were there... the most credible of all listed... | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/10/2007 11:54:40 PM |
And we should have know that they were gone how?... Would that be because weapon inspectors were not allowed to inspect and that of course means there is nothing to inspect right.?
Perhaps you are not aware, but weapon inspectors were allowed back into Iraq before the invasion, and were not finding anything incriminating. The UN asked Bush to allow enough time for the inspectors to thoroughly do their job, but he refused to do so, even though it was not his decision to make. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/11/2007 12:15:17 AM |
And we should have know that they were gone how?... Would that be because weapon inspectors were not allowed to inspect and that of course means there is nothing to inspect right.? Come on .. you can't have it both ways they were there or not.. you say they were there and intel said they were there.. Bill said they were there.. (thats the president.. and he would of course be privy to such intel) Hilary (smartest woman in america) said they were there and she would also know. I can't think of any more credible sources.. Oh yeah United Nations said they were there... the most credible of all listed...
You really need to do some reading on this. The UN inspectors were pulled out because of the threat of invasion from the USA. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/11/2007 12:19:57 AM | yup....the weapons inspectors were allowed back into Iraq - and then every move they made had to be approved in advance, there were locales to which they could not go....and Bush had every right to make the decision he did. What he didn't have the right to say, and what he didn't say despite your inference, was that he was time limiting the inspectors.
What he did do was to make a decision to go to war - one entirely within his purview. Or was he supposed to listen to the liberal hordes telling him not to go - because it would expose American troops to...are you ready for this folks? - weapons of mass destruction.
Suck and blow, suck and blow....hey liberals, choose one or the other, please. You can't have it both ways. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/11/2007 7:36:44 AM |
yup....the weapons inspectors were allowed back into Iraq - and then every move they made had to be approved in advance, there were locales to which they could not go
Actually, in the time leading up to the war, they were able to do their job without interference.
and Bush had every right to make the decision he did.
No, he did not. It was the UN's decision to make. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/11/2007 9:23:47 AM |
What he did do was to make a decision to go to war - one entirely within his purview. Or was he supposed to listen to the liberal hordes telling him not to go - because it would expose American troops to...are you ready for this folks? - weapons of mass destruction.
I don't know anybody personaly who was objecting to the invasion based on fear of WMD's. Perhaps these were just voices in your head?
The inspectors themselves stated that the invasion wasn't neccesary, that there was no evidence of WMD's.
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United Nations' top two weapons experts said Sunday that the invasion of Iraq a year ago was not justified by the evidence in hand at the time.
You certainly can't argue they were wrong. There were after all.... No WMD's
If it wasn't so dishonest I'd admire the balsyness of claiming the inspections weren't working. Considering no WMD's were found, and the inpectors themselves were stating that they were. Especially considering no WMD's were found.
Basically to support the Invasion of Iraq at this point you have to either be the type that can lie to yourself, or the type that cares so much more about being right rather than honest, that they lie to others. | |
|
Home
login 
