Bill O'Reilly

WeeZer51402

WeeZer51402

Registered
What does everybody think of Bill O'Reilly, he seems to be a very controversial news anchor. I was just wondering what everybody thinks about his so-called no spin zone, it seems to be that there is a very BIG right-wing spin on his reports. And just for laughs i thought I'd post that I heard that Snoop Dog said that O'Reilly is the one celebrity that he wants to slap...
 
I se his program from time to time. Funny how people label him as conservative just because he calls on celebrities and such for their actions (see his post 9/11 programs). The funny thing was he was right about the 9/11 contributions and held those organizations (and their celebrity TV hosts) feet to fire.

I have taken to likening the guy except for his abrasive interview style (shouting sometimes). I commended Bill because at the beginning of the Iraq build up, he said he supported the war to go after WMDs. When no WMDs were found, he is now calling on George Bush to come "clean" and Bill has apologized for his early dismissal of the claims (from before the war) for being soft on the WMD claims thing. That tells me that he is actually playing middle of the road journalism and not giving into the elitism of the mainstream television network news people. If Bill scares either US political party, so be it.
 
O'Rielly is not a news anchor and does not pretend to be one. His show is analysis and opinion of current events. He is just as likely to go after a stupid thing a conservative does as he is a hollywood person. His show is the highest rated cable news show.
 
I love the O'reilly Factor. I'm admittedly a right wing guy, but O'reilly is truly independent. If you watch the last segment every night of viewer mail, he gets it from the lefties for being too far right and the righties for being too far left, often on the same story. This tells me he must be independent. Read any of his books and you'll see he supports many positions on the left and on the right. Also, do not confuse him with a news anchor, he is not and does not claim to be. He states all the time he is the host of a news analysis program where opinions supported by fact are to be aired. He doesn't claim to be a news reporting program like the networks supposedly are. As far as his interview style I love it. He only raises his voice if you're evasive or you're supporting activities that harm other people, especially children. I bet if you actually watch the show, you may not agree with all of his opinions but you'll appreciate the fact that he is actually fair and balanced, to use the parlance of Fox News.
 
speedfreak - your probably wondering why my posts about public figures are mostly negative but you must keep in mind the public figures that i post about are people whom i consider to be morons partly because of there ideaology and stupid things i feel they have done, for instance i dont that GWB is deserving of the presidency or any other "accomplishment" of his, take his business ventures for example. Can i hear anybody say "Thank you daddy" George W. Bush without all of his daddy's is a nobody. As for Bill O'Reilly I dont like his style because I think the way he spreads his ideas and opinions put others who may have something to say that are not so agressive at a disadvantage. But now the answser to the big question is who do I like? Thats a complex question, I like people who will fight for my rights and the well being of the average American. I like people who will fight so I can get a good education in public schools and not have to see suffer of lack of health insurance. I like someone who will give more priority to the working class than the rich. Though these are the qualities amongst other things like honesty that I am looking for in people I tend to be equally critical of those whom i may agree with. For instance there some attributes i dislike about John Kerry. Example - His support of NAFTA. Though NAFTA isnt a huge problem with outsourcing right now it could be in the future. I liked Howard Dean...Kind of, he did seem a little fake but he is out now. I will say this though any of the dems running right now are GWB, even Sharpton or Kucinich, people who don't particularly please me with publically calling GWB a liar, which he is, but if they want to actually ensure that there vision of a new America gets accomplished they'd be intellegent enough to know that voters don't like that and that they maybe turning people off to there ideas rather than gaining support. Hope this clears things up for you :)
 
sjb2016 - I do watch "The Factor", not everynight. I dont watch it because I like it but rather to get perspective and not be stuck in the world of moderate-liberal media.
 
Oh i dont know, Maybe the non-exsistent stock piles of WMD's that Iraq was suppossed to have for one thing. He claims hes improving education and thats a lie in itself, NCLB is a joke. Ill add some more later because i need to get going right now but that should be good to start with.
 
Speedfreak - Here are some more lies from Bush & Co.
"45 percent of all of the dividend income goes to people with $50,000-or-less incomes, family incomes. Nearly three-quarters of it goes to families with $100,000 or less family income."

—White House senior adviser Karl Rove, discussing the Bush tax proposal in a meeting with reporters, as reported by Dana Milbank in the Jan. 28 Washington Post.

"Not exactly. It is true that 43.8 percent of tax returns with dividend income are from households with less than $50,000 in income and 73.8 percent of such returns are from households with less than $100,000. But that doesn't mean the little guy earning less than $50,000 gets '45 percent of all the income' or that the Main Street earners below $100,000 get 'three-quarters' of dividend income.

"In fact, those earning less than $50,000 get 14.7 percent of dividend income, and those earning less than $100,000 get 32.7 percent, according to a Brookings Institution/Urban Institute analysis. The former would get 6.8 percent of the benefit of Bush's dividend plan, while the latter would get 20.9 percent."

—Milbank, in the Jan. 28 Washington Post.
Click to expand...

How about GWB on jobs and how his predictions were wrong, well lets take a look at who really creates more jobs, Clinton had +2.4% Job growth while GWB has had a -.7% job growth...hmm, hes really good for the working class.

How about Bush's relationship with Ken Lay, well I'll give you a link to that because it is far too much to put in this post. That info can be found here.

And here is some bush history for you.
 
Dividends should not be taxed because the corporation already paid taxes - this is double taxation. Yeah they probably shaded the stats to fit their arguement. In the same way that the dems say that a reduction in the rate of increase is a cut.
Ken Lay and Enron gave money to the Bush campaign but what exactly did they get in return. Who knows when they first met! Does it really matter? Daddy probably introduced them and GWB forgot but Ken Lay did not. Personally I think that no corporation should be able to give money to people in elected office or running for elected office. It comprimises the corporation and the politician.
Jobs. In 2002 the unemployment rate was at historic lows. Theses levels are almost impossible to maintain. The US unemployment rate is the lowest in the world. Any politician who says they will create x number of jobs is lying.

The WMD thing is strange to me. I do not think Bush lied about the WMD. I think he beleived they were there. That does not mean he lied about it. Perhaps Saddam was pulling the wool over the worlds eyes. Perhaps Saddam's scientists were lying to him so he would't execute their children. Just a thought.
 
Well if bush didnt really know about the WMD's than he shouldnt have made such a strong case with them as his main argument, there was also big contorversy in the intelligence community about the accuracy of that intelligence. Our Sec. of state even opposes the war at first. Actually I heard Cheif of Staff for the Sec. of State Wilkerson speak and he said the THEORY(yes theory, thats the key word here) that once sanctions were lifted on Iraq they would resume there WMD program. That statement leads me to believe the Iraqi WMD program was and is dormant and this whole war has been a personal vendeta from the begining.
 
WeeZer51402 said:
Well if bush didnt really know about the WMD's than he shouldnt have made such a strong case with them as his main argument
Click to expand...
I think that he believed the WMD were there and a threat (I'm not sure of why they would be a threat to us though).
That statement leads me to believe the Iraqi WMD program was and is dormant and this whole war has been a personal vendeta from the begining.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. But one man cannot take the whole nation to war. He had support from congress.

My take on twhy the US liberated Iraq.

For the last 2 thousand years the christian world and the muslim world have been at odds. Both sides attacking the other repeatedly over the course of time. Something interesting happened in the mid 1990's in the former state of Yugoslavia. The western christian democracies defended the muslims from an oppressive secular/christian regime bent on regional genocide of muslims. Refered to as ethnic cleansing, what was occurring was nothing short of the elimination of muslims from the region. This was the first time that the christians defended/liberated the muslims instead of attacking them. Yes it was Clinton who took the lead on this action and yes the republicans were upset. Thats what politicians do when they are not in power. They say the sky is falling and its the other guy's fault. Same thing is happening right now. The action in Bosnia and Croatia will be seen as a worthwhile action.
Afghanistan was a nation ruled by the Taliban, an extreme muslim regime which oppressed women & harboured the terrorists who attacked the US. We'll get to how they were funded in a bit. The US made a huge error at the end of the Russian Afgan war. The US made promises to the Afgan people and then reneged on them creating the atmosphere which allowed the extremists to take over the country. The US is now in the process of correcting its previous mistake in Afghanistan. This will take time of course but the biggest hurdle, getting rid of the Taliban, is out of the way. This is the second example of the christian west liberating a muslim population. One more thing, Afghanistan shares Iran's eastern border.
Iraq was ruled by an oppressive dictator in Saddam. Saddam is a Sunni muslim and his group is the minority in Iraq. The Sunni minority and Saddam oppressed, mudered, tortured, etc the Shia muslims. Iraq is the most secular society in the mideast. The most open to the idea of democracy. Iraq did invade Kuwait but GB1 and his coalition didn't finish the job properly. Did we leave Hitler in Germany or the Japanese keep their power after WWII. No we destroyed their ability to make war and replaced the governments with democracies and rebuilt their economies. In Iraq the job of destroying the regime has now been completed and the jobs of building democracy and economy are in their infancy. This is the third muslim country liberated by a western christian nation.
Is there a pattern forming here?
Is this good or bad?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top