O'Reilly Gets Owned

Off Topic
41

[quote]Jersey5150 wrote:
O’Reily is a big fucking hypocrit. He preaches on and on about morals and values while he sexually harrases an employee then pays her to keep her mouth shut.

Fuck him if he where a man with any integrity he would have admitted what he did and appologized. Admitting he is a human being and makes mistakes and works on being a better person would have helped his credibility with me.

Hey I can understand not wanting her to play the tapes, but he paid her hush money and didnt take any responsibility for what he did.

He also distorts FACTS on a regular basis, opinion is one thing, but a fact like a statistic for example needs to be reported accuratly. He mistates facts all the fucking time.

[/quote]

This is simply garbage rhetoric. You pull this off some left blog somewhere? You mention nothing that pertains to the actual thread. Yah, we get it–you obviously don’t like Bill. But you, just like Letterman, made yourself look like an ass because you did little investigating on your own and just repeated the left mantra crap.

Letterman was a boor. To then acknowlege that he doesn’t even watch or know anything about O’Reilly, but wants to chastise him for his supposed transgressions is more garbage.

Good job Dave. You appealed to your moronic audience, but showed the rest of the world what a first rate 2nd stringer you really are.

OWNED! Harris you must be joking.

42

[quote]JokerFMJ wrote:
I always enjoyed the picture of those people in NY City when the war in Iraq first started… There’s the one of the guy holding the sign saying, “Bush killed my son!”

I just wanted to tap him on the shoulder and let him know that in America the Military is still on a voluntary.[/quote]

That’s really funny. Are you claiming these people VOLUNTARILY went to Iraq?
The truth is that they voluntered to join the “weekend army” thinking they would be deployed in Katrina-like situations, then were shipped to Iraq.

43

[quote]jwdolaniii wrote:
“In most wars, this one especially, the relatives of the fallen support the war. Why does Cindy Sheehan deserve more respect than those? Because she camped out in Bush’s neighborhood?”

Dead on balls accurate!
[/quote]
Let’s turn it the other way around. How many people, supporting the war, would be willing to go to Iraq?

If this is SO VERY IMPORTANT for the US, for the world, you’d think they’d sign up, wouldn’t you?

44

I don’t watch Letterman nor O’Reilly. Just one remark though.
Since most O’Reilly fans are seem so upset with Mr. Letterman beinf rude to their hero, am I correct to assume that Mr. O’Reilly is never rude himself?

45

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
I don’t watch Letterman nor O’Reilly. Just one remark though.
Since most O’Reilly fans are seem so upset with Mr. Letterman beinf rude to their hero, am I correct to assume that Mr. O’Reilly is never rude himself?[/quote]

It has nothing to do with being a fan. I don’t have cable so I know of O’Reilly, but am not a regular viwer. It has to do with the basis of the thread. I’m not so much arguing for O’Reilly as I am against Letterman and the premise of the thread…

46

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
swivel wrote:

letterman has all kinds of people on his show and they all get along. he’s incredibly versatile. o’reilly is an inept oaf if he can’t go on a milk and cookies show like that and figure a way to make a good impression.

Foolishness. Talk show hosts have people on to be themselves - actors talk about their movies, political candidates talk up themselves, comedians do jokes.

No one - not even the host - is surprised to have O’Reilly on and have O’Reilly immediately start doing his routine from the Factor on whatever O’Reilly’s latest shtick is. That is why you bring on guests.

Go back and watch the video - Letterman specifically brings up O’Reilly’s ‘friends in the Bush administration’ and the war. Letterman didn’t have to, he could have asked about anything he wanted to. Letterman knows its good TV to get O’Reilly going on his material - after all, there isn’t a thread on T-Nation with clips of Letterman interviewing Sarah Jessica Parker about the ‘Family Stone’. We are all talking about it right now and we have all seen the video - you get it?[/quote]

Scary that I actually agree with Thunder. But its like staring down a guy at a bar and then wondering why he wants to fight…you damn well know that if you stare to long, something’s going to happen.

Noone has Bill O’Reilly on their show and expects to not end up talking politics.

And HH, I listen to O’Reilly and Limbaugh all the time, not to mention that crazy fascist fuck Savage. You have to know your enemy, and know how he thinks, and what the basis for their argument. Otherwise, you end up spewing crap, only to have them spewing crap right back. Then it ends up like the Presidential debates, where they talk without speaking.

47

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
jwdolaniii wrote:
“In most wars, this one especially, the relatives of the fallen support the war. Why does Cindy Sheehan deserve more respect than those? Because she camped out in Bush’s neighborhood?”

Dead on balls accurate!

Let’s turn it the other way around. How many people, supporting the war, would be willing to go to Iraq?

If this is SO VERY IMPORTANT for the US, for the world, you’d think they’d sign up, wouldn’t you?

[/quote]

So are you saying the supporters only do so because they don’t have to go? I don’t understand your ?question? here.

I may not support everything about Iraq, but I damn sure support the troops and my country. If asked to serve, I most certainly would. But no, I did not nor will I enlist.

I think your question is answered by every person who has enlisted in the past 3 years.

48

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
swivel wrote:

letterman has all kinds of people on his show and they all get along. he’s incredibly versatile. o’reilly is an inept oaf if he can’t go on a milk and cookies show like that and figure a way to make a good impression.

Foolishness. Talk show hosts have people on to be themselves - actors talk about their movies, political candidates talk up themselves, comedians do jokes.

No one - not even the host - is surprised to have O’Reilly on and have O’Reilly immediately start doing his routine from the Factor on whatever O’Reilly’s latest shtick is. That is why you bring on guests.

Go back and watch the video - Letterman specifically brings up O’Reilly’s ‘friends in the Bush administration’ and the war. Letterman didn’t have to, he could have asked about anything he wanted to. Letterman knows its good TV to get O’Reilly going on his material - after all, there isn’t a thread on T-Nation with clips of Letterman interviewing Sarah Jessica Parker about the ‘Family Stone’. We are all talking about it right now and we have all seen the video - you get it?

Scary that I actually agree with Thunder. But its like staring down a guy at a bar and then wondering why he wants to fight…you damn well know that if you stare to long, something’s going to happen.

Noone has Bill O’Reilly on their show and expects to not end up talking politics.

And HH, I listen to O’Reilly and Limbaugh all the time, not to mention that crazy fascist fuck Savage. You have to know your enemy, and know how he thinks, and what the basis for their argument. Otherwise, you end up spewing crap, only to have them spewing crap right back. Then it ends up like the Presidential debates, where they talk without speaking.[/quote]

ENEMY!

Jeepers FI, it’s just political commentary. Just simple basic ideological differences. If you’re simply being an oppositionist to be one, then you should just run for congress.

49

[quote]harris447 wrote:
edgecrusher wrote:
oh yea, owned big time…

When’s “The O’Letterman Factor” going to debut?

November, 1981. It’s been running on NBC, then CBS since then.[/quote]

I thought that was the Late Show with David Letterman…well, then again I think the economy is doing well, so what do I know.

50

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
JokerFMJ wrote:
I always enjoyed the picture of those people in NY City when the war in Iraq first started… There’s the one of the guy holding the sign saying, “Bush killed my son!”

I just wanted to tap him on the shoulder and let him know that in America the Military is still on a voluntary.

That’s really funny. Are you claiming these people VOLUNTARILY went to Iraq?
The truth is that they voluntered to join the “weekend army” thinking they would be deployed in Katrina-like situations, then were shipped to Iraq.[/quote]

The military does not hide what it does; it does not sugar coat the potential dangers involved; it does not dress up the intent of itself, that is to serve and to protect.

Those people may not have voluntarily gone to Iraq, but they voluntarily chose to join the military knowing the risks/dangers involved. Fighting in a war is one of those risks/dangers involved; heeding to the Commander in Chief’s wishes is another. While they may not agree with his decision, they are bound by the terms of the contract to do his bidding (within reason of course).

So in a sense, yes, they voluntarily went to Iraq. I have yet to hear of an instance of a higher up in the military holding a gun to a soldier’s head and FORCED him/her to go to Iraq. So yes, again, they voluntarily went to Iraq.

51

Ha. Hey man, I take politics pretty seriously!

Honestly, there is a difference between people with a true conservative viewpoint and people like Limbaugh and Savage. They are speakers for the administration and republican party and little else. And I’ll be damned if the administration isn’t my enemy.

52

Only an extreme liberal would see that clip as O’Reilly getting owned.

Lettermen states that he’s not smart enough to debate him and then says something on the order of “I get the feeling that about 60% of what you say is crap.”

It sort of reminds me of the way liberals debate on these threads. Name calling and emotion, no real facts.

O’Reilly further had some very good points about “Christmas.” Those of us who keep track are well aware of the ACLU’s war against Christmas. And anytime a large department store like Sears (I also heard Wal-Mart was doing it) attempts to remove the word “Christmas” from it’s marketing you know that something is amiss.

Thanks for the clip, it was good.

53

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Jersey5150 wrote:
O’Reily is a big fucking hypocrit. He preaches on and on about morals and values while he sexually harrases an employee then pays her to keep her mouth shut.

Fuck him if he where a man with any integrity he would have admitted what he did and appologized. Admitting he is a human being and makes mistakes and works on being a better person would have helped his credibility with me.

Hey I can understand not wanting her to play the tapes, but he paid her hush money and didnt take any responsibility for what he did.

He also distorts FACTS on a regular basis, opinion is one thing, but a fact like a statistic for example needs to be reported accuratly. He mistates facts all the fucking time.

This is simply garbage rhetoric. You pull this off some left blog somewhere? You mention nothing that pertains to the actual thread. Yah, we get it–you obviously don’t like Bill. But you, just like Letterman, made yourself look like an ass because you did little investigating on your own and just repeated the left mantra crap.

Letterman was a boor. To then acknowlege that he doesn’t even watch or know anything about O’Reilly, but wants to chastise him for his supposed transgressions is more garbage.

Good job Dave. You appealed to your moronic audience, but showed the rest of the world what a first rate 2nd stringer you really are.

OWNED! Harris you must be joking. [/quote]

I dont think he got owned on Letterman either, but I have researched several of his statements and they where false or misrepresentations of fact. I did not just disagree with his opinions.

My main issues with him are his moralizing (as I mentioned in my first post) and his mistating of facts.

I dont like Bill and would love to debate him in person. You I dont know but thank you for being nasty to me when I did not attack you personally.

I have done my homework and if you need proof feel free to PM me and I will send you links to access the same info. Again its about facts, that are verifiable not opinions.

54

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Only an extreme liberal would see that clip as O’Reilly getting owned.

Lettermen states that he’s not smart enough to debate him and then says something on the order of “I get the feeling that about 60% of what you say is crap.”

It sort of reminds me of the way liberals debate on these threads. Name calling and emotion, no real facts.

O’Reilly further had some very good points about “Christmas.” Those of us who keep track are well aware of the ACLU’s war against Christmas. And anytime a large department store like Sears (I also heard Wal-Mart was doing it) attempts to remove the word “Christmas” from it’s marketing you know that something is amiss.

Thanks for the clip, it was good.

[/quote]

Is the ACLU anti-Jesus as well? They defended a young womens right to wear a t-shirt that said “Real women love Jesus” at school. She had been sent home to change the shirt because the Admin. felt it was innapropriate. The ACLU agrued it was a violation of her right to free speech and won. She can now wear the shirt to school. Doesnt sound like a rabidly anti christian organization.

Just a side note I dont agree with everything the ACLU says.

55

[quote]Jersey5150 wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
Jersey5150 wrote:
O’Reily is a big fucking hypocrit. He preaches on and on about morals and values while he sexually harrases an employee then pays her to keep her mouth shut.

Fuck him if he where a man with any integrity he would have admitted what he did and appologized. Admitting he is a human being and makes mistakes and works on being a better person would have helped his credibility with me.

Hey I can understand not wanting her to play the tapes, but he paid her hush money and didnt take any responsibility for what he did.

He also distorts FACTS on a regular basis, opinion is one thing, but a fact like a statistic for example needs to be reported accuratly. He mistates facts all the fucking time.

This is simply garbage rhetoric. You pull this off some left blog somewhere? You mention nothing that pertains to the actual thread. Yah, we get it–you obviously don’t like Bill. But you, just like Letterman, made yourself look like an ass because you did little investigating on your own and just repeated the left mantra crap.

Letterman was a boor. To then acknowlege that he doesn’t even watch or know anything about O’Reilly, but wants to chastise him for his supposed transgressions is more garbage.

Good job Dave. You appealed to your moronic audience, but showed the rest of the world what a first rate 2nd stringer you really are.

OWNED! Harris you must be joking.

I dont think he got owned on Letterman either, but I have researched several of his statements and they where false or misrepresentations of fact. I did not just disagree with his opinions.

My main issues with him are his moralizing (as I mentioned in my first post) and his mistating of facts.

I dont like Bill and would love to debate him in person. You I dont know but thank you for being nasty to me when I did not attack you personally.

I have done my homework and if you need proof feel free to PM me and I will send you links to access the same info. Again its about facts, that are verifiable not opinions.

[/quote]

I doubt very seriously that you can show me anywhere that has proof that he has lied intentionally to make his point. To say he has never given info that turned out to be false later on is not a bad personality trait, it’s a mistake. One made by most everyone in his position. News happens fast and the reporting is just as fast and mistakes are made.

Your rant about a very iffy sexual case not withstanding, show me where he moralizes. Granted, I don’t get to see the show often, but he is no worse than any other anchor reporting news. His show is about his opinion in some cases.
It’s not just a show that is giving you news. He’s allowed to pontificate and bloviate given the format.

56

[quote]Jersey5150 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Only an extreme liberal would see that clip as O’Reilly getting owned.

Lettermen states that he’s not smart enough to debate him and then says something on the order of “I get the feeling that about 60% of what you say is crap.”

It sort of reminds me of the way liberals debate on these threads. Name calling and emotion, no real facts.

O’Reilly further had some very good points about “Christmas.” Those of us who keep track are well aware of the ACLU’s war against Christmas. And anytime a large department store like Sears (I also heard Wal-Mart was doing it) attempts to remove the word “Christmas” from it’s marketing you know that something is amiss.

Thanks for the clip, it was good.

Is the ACLU anti-Jesus as well? They defended a young womens right to wear a t-shirt that said “Real women love Jesus” at school. She had been sent home to change the shirt because the Admin. felt it was innapropriate. The ACLU agrued it was a violation of her right to free speech and won. She can now wear the shirt to school. Doesnt sound like a rabidly anti christian organization.

Just a side note I dont agree with everything the ACLU says.

[/quote]

Not one thing O’reilly said about Christmas holds much fact other than him specifically mentioning department stores not using the title. Everything else has been found to be false from the Silent Night school issue to his overhyping of the “erosion” of Christmas on his own show. I am amazed that anyone is going to support what that man said on this issue. It was clearly OVERstatement of fact.

57

quote]Professor X wrote:
jwdolaniii wrote:
“In most wars, this one especially, the relatives of the fallen support the war. Why does Cindy Sheehan deserve more respect than those? Because she camped out in Bush’s neighborhood?”

Dead on balls accurate!

It sure is…considering I hear more conservatives bring her name up than anyone else. I don’t even know what the woman is saying beyond a few quotes we have discussed on this forum and really don’t care. I do wonder why this bothers people so much that she doesn’t support the war. Who cares? Why does anyone feel the need to call her names and act as if she is the scum of the earth because of it? Why does anyone care so much regardless of where you stand on the issue?[/quote]

X
My beef isn’t that she doesn’t support the war. One of the things that make this country great is that you can question government, you can voice opinions and you can act like a total jackass and say stupid things and not get throw into jail like in some other countries. I’m certain everyone grieves with Ms Sheehan over the loss of her son and the loss of every other man and woman who have died in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. However, there are over 2000 other families who have lost loved one who don’t feel the same way she does nor share her beliefs. Those family?s opinions are not all over the news. That?s all that I was agreeing with in the first post. Not to get off the subject anymore then I already have but even her own family doesn’t agree with her. I was simply agreeing that her opinion, which has been voiced all throughout the media, should hold no more or less weight the other 2000 families.

"In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan/Crawford Texas issue:
Sheehan Family Statement:

The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the expense of her son’s good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.

Sincerely,

Casey Sheehan’s grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins."

58

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
jwdolaniii wrote:
“In most wars, this one especially, the relatives of the fallen support the war. Why does Cindy Sheehan deserve more respect than those? Because she camped out in Bush’s neighborhood?”

Dead on balls accurate!

Let’s turn it the other way around. How many people, supporting the war, would be willing to go to Iraq?

If this is SO VERY IMPORTANT for the US, for the world, you’d think they’d sign up, wouldn’t you?

[/quote]

Wreck
The vast majority of the troops fighting the war support the cause. I think people from all sides agree that the reasons given to us regarding the war were false ie. nuclear arms. However, I don’t think anyone can say the world is better off with Saddam in power. My concern is that all of the negative press translates to lower troop moral. The vast majority of the troops beleive in what they are doing and its got to be difficult if you are fighting and dying for cause and feel like your country doesn’t support you.

59

[quote]jwdolaniii wrote:
The vast majority of the troops beleive in what they are doing and its got to be difficult if you are fighting and dying for cause and feel like your country doesn’t support you.
[/quote]

If I have a mission, I believe in what I am doing as well in terms of doing what needs to be done. That doesn’t mean I support how we went into war with Iraq. And to be absolutely blunt, you will find few soldiers who would even risk speaking out against the war publicly even if they don’t agree with it. That doesn’t mean there aren’t any. The military is a career. Just like you wouldn’t work for Pepsi and then give an interview about how you like Coke much better, most people, if they disagree, will keep their opinion to themselves.

The bottom line is, you don’t know how many truly support this war. I hear things on a personal level from friends that they would never say in the company of anyone else with a higher rank. A soldier gets paid to follow orders. The talking points about not supporting the troops if you don’t agree with how we went into Iraq is largely bullshit.