Bill O'Reilly, do you guys like him?





Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Discus: College Confidential Café: 2004 Archive: Bill O'Reilly, do you guys like him?
By Rohit_Sn (Rohit_Sn) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 04:05 pm: Edit

All of you who have been watching FOX news might have observed "The Factor" with O'Reilly. What do you really think of him and his NO SPIN ZONE. I personally don't think his show is fair and balanced as he claims. He is way over on the right.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 04:11 pm: Edit

He does lean to the right and he is unbelievably arrogant, but I think he keeps certain influential people on their toes, something that's needed. Who didn't enjoy seeing him spar with Micheal Moore?

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 04:15 pm: Edit

I don't watch him, but I have seen an interview/debate with Russert between him and Krugman. Though I find Krugman pretty arrogant (that intellectual type of arrogance), I was amazed after watching it that O'Reilly was so popular seeing how he doesn't even pretend to be biased (makes me believe the No Spin Zone is pretty partisan). Also, when Krugman had him on something, he just started yelling and calling Krugman a socialist even though it had nothing to do with the topic or he'd change the topic somehow. For instance Krugman said something about the top getting tax breaks, O'Reilly started talking about the lower middle class not being able to afford homes though the tax breaks Krugman referred to had nothing to do with them. When Krugman brought up something about Fox News being biased, O'Reilly called it a cheap shot, but he later had no problem attacking the New York Times. I just found him to be a hypocritical bully to be honest.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 04:18 pm: Edit

Mentioning the Krugman vs. O'Reilly showdown on CNN, I loved that debate.

O'Reilly didn't call the attack on FoxNews a cheap shot, but a comment Krugman made to the effect of, "I'm not on your show, so you can't cut off my mike". While that is something O'Reilly does do on his own show that is ill-advised, it had nothing to do with the issue on hand and it sounded like backbiting.

By the way, his criticism of the NYTimes was valid based on facts about what the newspaper chooses to include and exclude. Krugman didn't even offer a defense in that regard. I won't say, however, that either of them won that match-up.

By 2bad4u (2bad4u) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 04:20 pm: Edit

he leans to right?

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 04:21 pm: Edit

I agree that the attack on the NY Times was fair (that's not the point though), but it was hypocritical of him to call Krugman's attack on Fox News a "cheap shot."

By 2bad4u (2bad4u) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 04:23 pm: Edit

i do love how the no spin zone has mikes being cut off

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 04:23 pm: Edit

"he leans to right?"

Hehehe...OK, you got me on that one...If the right were a pool, O'Reilly would be submerged and drowned...You happy now? LOL...

By Vancat (Vancat) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 04:24 pm: Edit

i think he's OK, except for his 2A stance. he's incredibly arrogant though, which is why I prefer Hannity.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 04:25 pm: Edit

That's not the only part he called a cheap shot ... he called it a cheap shot when Krugman brought up the notes passed down from the top at Fox News.

That "cut your mike" thing is not a cheap shot. It's a little arrogant, but it has as much to do with the presentation of the news as NY Times coverage of certain events. It's not allowing a certain viewpoint to be showed to it's full extent.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 04:26 pm: Edit

All in all, the debate was spirited and fun...Krugman's lips were trembling and O'Reilly's face was a deep shade of red by the end. This is what politics are all about.

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 04:27 pm: Edit

I love Bill O'Reilly. We both agree on most issues. The Krugman spar was way better than the Michael Moore one. That Krugman couldn't keep his hands still and like during the last five minutes of the Russert show, I thought Bill was gonna attack him. Mediamatters!? WTF! LOL.

But yeah, I know that he leans certain ways on some issues and another way in other issues. But what makes him so popular is that he is mainstream and not trying to indoctrinate the country [cough NYT].

If anyone asked me to define my political views, I'm Bill O'Reillian.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 04:27 pm: Edit

Plus if you saw the debate, you'd understand the "cut your mike" comment seeing how O'Reilly just raised his voice angrily almost every time Krugman said something. He probably would've if he could've.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 04:27 pm: Edit

"That's not the only part he called a cheap shot ... he called it a cheap shot when Krugman brought up the notes passed down from the top at Fox News."

Don't believe so, but I'm not going to accuse you of being a liar.

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 04:28 pm: Edit

[runs to get some Factor gear...]

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 04:29 pm: Edit

That Media Matters thing was ridiculous too. He was just deflecting from what was important -- what he actually said. It doesn't matter where Krugman got it from, it matters what he said. If it's not the truth, he should've said so, but he didn't.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 04:30 pm: Edit

I don't believe that you could categorize his tone as "angry", if anything, Krugman was the one most greatly excited...Between his shaking and trembling, you wondered if he was about to blow a fuse.

And about the Media Matters thing, O'Reilly has run a daily show for an extended period of time. I don't believe that he, or anyone else for that matter, would remember every statement he has or hasn't made on the show. So he made the wise move of calling Krugman out on his sources, knowing very well anyone can piece together bits of statements to make anyone look like a kook. Some of these statements could have rightly been his, someone of them could have been doctored or taken out of context. He just didn't trust Media Matters to do the unbiased investigatory work, which makes sense. He was right, Krugman shouldn't have been lazy and obtained the information for himself.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 04:30 pm: Edit

What do you mean he isn't trying to indoctrinate the country? He has a very biased approach and makes it so his viewpoint is the only sensible one by miscontruing what other people say or just cutting them off completely.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 04:31 pm: Edit

O'Reilly showed his anger I guess is what I'm saying. Krugman was pissed too, but he wasn't raising his voice and it didn't look like he was ready to pounce like O'Reilly.

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 04:34 pm: Edit

One question: Is O'Reilly more balanced or more of a threat to the public than the NYT. I think the comment about Abu Grahib (or however you spell it) was valid. The NYT has a leftist point of view and they push a certain agenda. O'Reilly is a mainstream guy, and he does have an agenda, that of the majority.

Also, I feel sorry for Krugman, the sacrificial lamb sent to O'Reilly because he wanted to promote his book.

You can't indoctrinate people that already agree with you!

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 04:39 pm: Edit

"but I think he keeps certain influential people on their toes, something that's needed"
Candi, that's Russert :-)! I love Russert and O'Reilly!

Also, I think the President or his advisors listen closely to Bill. I believe so because when he said that the US has to get rid of the Sadr militia right NOW, like three days later... Sadr goes chicken! Although I believe that the Iraqi PM had something to do with it, "a lesson they will never forget" got my skin crawlin'!

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 04:44 pm: Edit

I thought it was a valid question as well. It was also a major news story, but still a valid question. My problem with him was when Krugman raised an equally valid question about Fox News and O'Reilly rejected it as a cheap shot. I find that hypocritical.

I don't think it's fair to call O'Reilly the majority simply because he is popular. I would be willing to bet that the New York Times sells the most papers nation wide, but that doesn't make them the majority.

I really don't see how O'Reilly won. He just got angry and dominated the conversation. Every time Krugman said something, O'Reilly never really responded either. Instead he'd go off like the Media Matters issue.

I think the indocrination issue shows through with you. You agree with him on most issues and I'm fine with that, but you have accepted everything that he has to say without thought. Your response to the Media Matters issue shows that perfectly. Think about it -- you completely looked over what he actually said. He said that Michael Moore hates America and there is an actual clip of it. Instead of denying that he said it or defending his stance (clearly wrong by the way -- Moore may hate a lot of things but if you saw the movie America is not one of them), but he instead attacked a source that had nothing to do with the subject matter.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 04:46 pm: Edit

You guys are so ignorent. A show can be fair and balenced, even with a host who holds opinions. Oreily does not claim to be neutral, and he is right of center overall and admits it. But the fair and balenced claim stems from his going after both sides in interviews, and providing many views by interviewing people from all sides including Moore.

He is one of the best interviewers and doesn't let his guests give a softball scripted answer that does not answer his question.

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 04:47 pm: Edit

I also believe that the comment about doing your own research was valid. O'Reilly has a staff (he claims... I dunno) that checks his facts and thoroughly researches the facts, and if wrong, he goes on the air and corrects the record. Even though Krugman isn't allowed a full staff because he is a op-ed columnist, he shouldn't be getting his facts from any organization because he agrees with its viewpoint. He can watch the Factor himself instead of going on the Web and getting his 'facts' from a website.

By 2bad4u (2bad4u) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 04:48 pm: Edit

the fact that he cuts peoples mike goes against the fact that its fair and balanced, it doesnt matter if you interview people from different sides if any second they say something you dont like your going to cut them off.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 04:49 pm: Edit

There is no neutrality ever -- I agree with that. I have no problem with his stance (well, I do, but I don't have a problem with him having a stance). I have a problem with his tactics, that's all. I like that he goes after people, but I don't think he has to lose his cool or cut microphones or anything like that.

"He is one of the best interviewers and doesn't let his guests give a softball scripted answer that does not answer his question."

Ironically, he didn't give a lot of answers to Krugman's questions.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 04:52 pm: Edit

It's facts though ... an actual clip. Who cares where it comes from? If it's not valid, that's entirely different. I wouldn't care if someone used a clip collected from the KKK as long as it was valid -- ultimately, it's O'Reilly himself that's the primary source and primary sources are all that matter.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 04:53 pm: Edit

Don't use facts in quotes -- it's an actual clip and O'Reilly never attacked it's validity.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 04:55 pm: Edit

While, at any time cutting off someone's mike is ill-advised, as I previously stated, it doesn't and hasn't happened at any time on a regular basis. There have been very few incidents of said behavior, and in those incidents, the argument had gotten so ridiculously heated it was counterintiuitive to the purpose of the discussion.

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 04:55 pm: Edit

Since it doesn't make much sense to debate this on and on and on... I'll keep it brief...starting now :-).

Believe me, I don't take everything Bill says as facts and incorporate every single thing he says into my brain. There are moments when I roll my eyes during his show, and others when I shake my head up and down.

Also, of course there is no way to precisely determine who is mainstream and who isn't. But if you go around passing a survey about political opinions, you'd find that most people agree with Bill on most things. Maybe he isn't mainsteam on the borda' with Mexico, but I really think most people agree with the majority of his points.

Also, I think that Bill's point that the NYT didn't review his NYT #1 Best-Selling books is very valid.

Besides, why is the NYT soooo afraid of Bill if the whole world doesn't agree with him. He's just a guy with a TV show, you are one of the top-selling newspapers. Chill...unless people agree with him more...

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 04:57 pm: Edit

What clip are you talking about? The only clips shown were from a documentary bashing Fox News that Krugman had nothing to do with. The information from Media Matters that Krugman re-stated were quotes.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 04:59 pm: Edit

As for O'Reilly dodging Krugman's questions, if anything it was the other way around!

Krugman lost major points with me when he refused to admit explicitly that he favors strong governmental control over the economy. This fact is very obvious from his stated points and book, why doesn't he own up to his position?

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 05:01 pm: Edit

I really wouldn't know if he is mainstream and I think that would be difficult to prove, but moving on.

No one here is attacking O'Reilly for pointing out that NYT is biased. I agree and personally I read only one columnist who is very much on the left (Kristof) because I think very much like him. Just like you watch O'Reilly because you think like him though not with everthing. What I am attacking him on is that he is saying that questioning Fox News is somehow different from questioning NYT. That's all.

By 2bad4u (2bad4u) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 05:02 pm: Edit

"Krugman lost major points with me when he refused to admit explicitly that he favors strong governmental control over the economy"

IN that case O'Reilly should stop using no spin zone and fair and balanced and be explicit that he is going to be on the right

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 05:03 pm: Edit

Craigk10, Le diable parle toujours en l'Évangile

The Devil can quote Scripture for his own purpose.

Did Krugman get the whole transcript of the show? Was it taken out of context? (Which may be also said about Moore) Was the source objective? Would your ninth grade teacher tell you that citing Media Matters is a reliable source?

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 05:04 pm: Edit

"Also, I think that Bill's point that the NYT didn't review his NYT #1 Best-Selling books is very valid."

"He's just a guy with a TV show, you are one of the top-selling newspapers."

*Nods*

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 05:05 pm: Edit

They didn't show the clip, but it does exist. Remember, O'Reilly never attacked it's validity. He just went after Krugman for using Media Matters as a research tool.

Krugman did say he was for more government control, but he did not say was a socialist. Whether he is or isn't is not the point. The point is that O'Reilly demands real answers from his guests yet does not do it himself. This isn't about Krugman remember.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 05:06 pm: Edit

"IN that case O'Reilly should stop using no spin zone and fair and balanced and be explicit that he is going to be on the right"

He stated on Russert that he was a "traditionalist". If that isn't owning up to his position I don't know what is. I think that term more fully encompasses his beliefs than simply "conservative".

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 05:06 pm: Edit

Craigk10, that is a valid point (exploring biases). But where is the bacon? the proof? Where is this memo? Lemme see the memo. Do you have a memo from every single day? Audio recordings and transcripts from staff meetings? The burden of proof is on the state! (source: Chappelle's Show)

NYT could attack Bill the same way he attacked the NYT by paying attention to coverage of news... but that wouldn't work too much against Bill.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 05:08 pm: Edit

"They didn't show the clip, but it does exist. Remember, O'Reilly never attacked it's validity."

So one clip encompasses the entirety of the quotes from Media Matters used by Krugman to denounce O'Reilly?

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 05:09 pm: Edit

Media Matters is the secondary source. Ultimately O'Reilly is the primary source. If O'Reilly had attacked it's legitimacy, fine, then I would have a problem with it. But he didn't. He didn't say it wasn't true to the best of my knowledge. He didn't counter it with anything besides an attack upon Media Matters itself. (You have to admit that likening Media Matters to the KKK was a little overboard).

Is it the best source? No. I'm not pretending it is. What I'm saying is that he is not dealing with what matters.

Sorry, but I got to go.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 05:10 pm: Edit

Good point, Ndbisme...Bill can attack NYT for exclusion of signficant news, but he can only be attacked for having a certain perspective of the news...NYT is guilty of BOTH...

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 05:12 pm: Edit

Craigk10, I dealt with Media Matters in an earlier post, no need to re-hash.

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 05:14 pm: Edit

"He just went after Krugman for using Media Matters as a research tool." (note: possibly taken out of context)
Craigk10, I do agree. Believe it or not I watched the same Russert show with Bill and Krugman three times! (not counting segments on Bill's show)

If you listen carefully when he first brings out the paper you hear Krugman slightly mumble "Media Matters." About a minute or so later after Bill has cleverly formulated an attack, he goes, "where did you get that quote from?" Then he goes on that Castro blitz.

We can't reasonably expect all show guests to answer the opposing side's question without deviating from the topic in the least. Everybody does it. Bill, Krugman, everyone.

Also, I remember chuckling when Bill referred to himself as a traditionalist. I said to myself, "boy, you must have sat down at your desk one day and sifted through a dictionary to come up with that adjective!" :-)

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 05:16 pm: Edit

Don't leave! :-( I'm sad now :-)!

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 05:37 pm: Edit

Oh, I made a silly mistake, the Krugman vs. O'Reilly debate was on MSNBC.

In conclusion, I would like to say there is a danger in obtaining your news from any single media source, including FoxNews and NYT. Yes, I watch Fox News, but I also read the BBC online and even Al-Jazeera on-line.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 05:38 pm: Edit

I'm back. I got the same impression from the "traditionalist" comment -- it's as if he was trying to be something different as if it makes him unbiased. Anyway, I'd like to hear a response to all you Bill O'Reilly lovers concerning the KKK comment.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 05:41 pm: Edit

I agree with that Candi. Something about Fox News scares me though. Has anyone ever seen Ted Turner's comments about Murdoch? Turner basically said that he's trying to take over the world. Apparently, Blair told him that he could have never become PM without Murdoch's support. If you are looking for a funny interview (instead of complete intensity like this one) watch Charlie Rose's interview of Turner.

By Simba (Simba) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 05:41 pm: Edit

Oreilly at his best with shut ups

watch it at:

http://cdn.moveon.org/data/ShutUp_Final_BbandHi.mov


http://http.dvlabs.com/carolina/Outfxd2/oreilly_lies.mov

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 05:44 pm: Edit

If you look at the classical definition of "conservative", it would be someone that would minimize the role of government in all aspects of our lives. O'Reilly would better fit the definition of a "traditionalist" because he is for minimizing the government's role in business, but he is for higher decency standards, etc.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 05:44 pm: Edit

Although funny, I would bet most of those were taken out of context. I was wondering when you would get in on this though.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 05:46 pm: Edit

I know Candi, but it did seem like more of a ploy than anything. And by modern standards, conservative means raising "decency" standards too -- look no further than the Christian right.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 05:46 pm: Edit

Simba, O'Reilly addresses this tape on MSNBC and points out in specificity how they cut off his statements, so they lose they lose their context.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 05:48 pm: Edit

"And by modern standards, conservative means raising 'decency' standards too -- look no further than the Christian right."

Sure, definitions have been so badly muddled that they are now called "conservative". However, if you look at the classical definitions, these modern usage of these terms is truly flawed.

By Simba (Simba) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 05:50 pm: Edit

candi see the second tape I added in my post - both the edited and unedited version.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 05:56 pm: Edit

How am I supposed to believe it is un-edited, look at the source? Give me an unbiased source and I will believe claims about a lack of editing.

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 05:58 pm: Edit

"If anyone asked me to define my political views, I'm Bill O'Reillian."

Addendum, I am first and foremost a Machiavellian, then a Bill O'Reillian.

I think we've discussed as much as we can on this subject :-).

By Rohit_Sn (Rohit_Sn) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 06:06 pm: Edit

When Krugman brought about Farenheit 9/11 in his book as pointed out by Russert in the show did you guys see O'Reilly's face? Eyes closed. Obviously disinterested. The interview with alec baldwin was pretty good. Entertaining. Anyway, why isn't he coming on the show the past few days?

By Morgantruce (Morgantruce) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 06:07 pm: Edit

There's something a little unnerving about seriously disliking a TV commentator---- and then every time you DO tune in "just for a minute", the guy is saying something that makes all the sense in the world!

Solution: watch an entire show once every few months.

Bill O'Reilly strikes me as being very conflicted. He seems to have all the right insticts for fairness, honesty, and ethics--- but then he has this huge pile of baggage he totes around that keeps him from behaving well.

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 06:24 pm: Edit

Another thing about the Krugman interview. On the show Krugman criticized Fox News for being the first major broadcaster to call the election for Bush in 2000. Even when Fox News called the election for Gore before Bush. I don't get it. You're criticizing a news channel for getting it right first? wow...

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 06:29 pm: Edit

That's one of the deceptions of F911. Moore said, "But then something called FoxNews called it for the other guy (meaning GW)...", implying that other networks changed their projections after Fox News. When, in actuality, at 10:00 p.m., CBS was the first to retract a Gore win. Fox didn't do so until 2:00 a.m.

By Paulhomework (Paulhomework) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 06:37 pm: Edit

i don't know what is so hard to understand here.

Let me clear this up:
1)OReilly leans to the right (duh he works for Fox)
2)NYT leans to the left (pretty obvious too they're in new york)
3.Moore is neither left or right. But he does hate Bush A LOT!

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 06:37 pm: Edit

Well, I'll take your word for it :-). I don't remember the 2000 election too well... my unconscious determined it was too traumatic! All I remember is I told my mommy to vote for Gore :-).

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 06:38 pm: Edit

Paul, 3 is soooo incorrect. He's a freakin socialist. He's lefter than Gore or Kerry!

I'll take this time to reiterate that the dream ticket is Lieberman & McCain!

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 06:46 pm: Edit

Yeah, the left seems to be paranoid and legitmately afraid of FoxNews. It's a cable news network, not NBC- yet Moore/OutFoxed/etc. treat is like it's the biggest threat facing the world (of course, after the combustion engine ;) ...ah, Gore jokes). When you fear a TV network...it's a bit ridiculous- just don't watch.

Plus Murdoch is responsible (now) for Family Guy and the Simpsons, so he gets "mad props" for that. If he takes over the world, as long as he dedicates a network to FG/Simpsons, I'll be happy. :)

As for O'Reilly, love his show, although sometimes it seems as if he talks about the same "personal" issue (ie. not a big story elsewhere) like rap music and the border on every show- it gets tiring. Although, I have both his "The O'Reilly Factor" and "No Spin Zone" books, and they're fantastic. He really does come off as more of an everyman- rejects the radical, gets angry with the arrogant, etc. As hokey as his slogan is, he does come off as a guy "looking out for you."

By Paulhomework (Paulhomework) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 06:55 pm: Edit

By left i meant democratic. Moore is a socialist as you say, which is not the same as democratic. So he's neither left nor right. He's a radical. An extremity. an anomaly. whatever you wanna call it.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 06:58 pm: Edit

Radical/socialist is far, far left. Not an anomaly.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 07:00 pm: Edit

...And Hunter, I strongly disagree with O'Reilly about rap music.

By Paulhomework (Paulhomework) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 07:04 pm: Edit

associating radicals like Moore with the democratic party is similar to associating the radical ultra-traditionalist christians w/ the right. The ideas of these two radical groups are so out of mainstream that i don't consider them part of that party. but that's just my opinion.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 07:07 pm: Edit

Well, I would agree with you, if I hadn't seen Michael Moore's appearance on Bill Maher's HBO show. He got on his knees with Bill to beg Nader not to run, to put Kerry in the White House this fall.

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 07:11 pm: Edit

Rap music. I'll discuss that, because I'm all Billed out.

Rap music has been one of the industries that has allowed the first millionaire African-Americans to spring up. Jay-Z has got money, Russell (sp.), etc.

I used to like rap a bit when I was younger (Eminem, DMX, etc.) but now its the same old boring stuff, and I'm sort of glad that I feel that way. You can only handle so many guns, bi*ches, ho's, drugs, etc. After a while it gets boring and you move on.

The problem with rap music occurs when you shape your whole friggin life after rap music. You have kids in schools calling their teacher "ho's," bringing guns to school, etc. The kids that get absorbed into this life style are kids that think the only way to make it in life is through rap.

I did side with Bill on the whole Ludacris issue, though I think he may have gone to far if he hadn't stopped with Ludacris.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 07:25 pm: Edit

Ndbisme, I respectfully and heartily disagree with you.

I don't believe in arguing gangsta rap's artistic value--beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

However, I tend to get very angry with the left when they attempt to minimize the value of personal responsibility (a very important theme that is central to the idea of conservatism). Some of them will try to say that young people aren't responsible for picking up smoking, the tobacco industry is. Some of them try to minimize Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold's responsibility for their actions by citing rampant gun culture and the accessibility of handguns (forgetting to note, however, that guns aren't new to our culture, but the idea that having them around somehow lessens personal responsibility over their usage is very new and something I would more likely attribute to this outbreak). I would also note that parental responsibility is also important in preventing these behaviors.

Similarly, I refuse to hold rap responsible for kids' poor manners, offensive language, and disruptive behaviors. This stuff starts at home. I attended an inner-city high school with a high drop-out rate. These kids' problems had nothing to do with rap music, but everything to do with bad parenting, negative attitudes, and a general lack of personal responsibility. This idea that society "creates the beast", so to speak, is something I would expect someone on the left to espouse, thus my quibble with O'Reilly.

That's all I have to say.

By Paulhomework (Paulhomework) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 07:33 pm: Edit

Candi,

Moore is only doing that because he hates Bush and doesn't wanna have him as president. It's pretty obvious that Nader's inclusion in the ballot will increase Bush's chances at re-election.

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 07:35 pm: Edit

I agree with you, Candi. There is no doubt that parental responsbility is what most times gives a kid an edge or hinders their chances in life. However once the parents are gone, maybe working fifteen jobs to make ends meet or they're dead, rap music picks up the "slack."

It appears to me that it's automatic in most inner-city districts that if you don't have good parents, the only place to go to feel like a somebody and be accepted is rap music.

Rap music doesn't cause all kids to go out and walk around in gangs and slapping people, etc., it's the lack of family structure.

It's a very complex societal issue, the role the media plays in the life and shapes the character of generations.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 07:37 pm: Edit

I also heard Moore was a registered Democrat when he claimed he was an Independent.

By Jekyllnhyde10 (Jekyllnhyde10) on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 12:19 am: Edit

I heard the O on the radio today discussing "movie rating inflation." He does tend to lean to the right, but I'm a conservative, so I'm just fine with that. I agree with him that what was considered rated r eleven years ago is given less severe ratings now. This is according to Harvard studies

By Alexandre (Alexandre) on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 07:51 am: Edit

I don't know him personally but I have watched his show on several occasions. Two things are evident:

1 he has absolutely ZERO knowledge of international issues

2 he is extremely rude and intolerant.

I am a devout Catholic and quite conservative, but I want nothing to do with an ignoramous like O'Reilly. The man stands for nothing.

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 07:59 am: Edit

Wow. That's like saying Bush stands for nothing.

By Simba (Simba) on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 12:03 pm: Edit

does he stand for anything?

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 01:38 pm: Edit

Well, I believe he stands for freedom of choice and market, personal accountability for actions, self-reliance.

By Simba (Simba) on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 02:21 pm: Edit

I didn't know he was pro-choice

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 06:33 pm: Edit

I'm not quite sure on his position with choice/life.

By Simba (Simba) on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 08:32 pm: Edit

amazing

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 10:39 pm: Edit

yes

By Vancat (Vancat) on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 11:52 pm: Edit

Ndbisme5, that was a joke right?-not knowing bush's position on abortion?

By Jerew (Jerew) on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 12:15 am: Edit

I think he does his job. He is a commentator who is not afraid to throw a wrench in the mix. He brings up important issues that generally aren't discussed like they should be on more "leftist" media. Is he perfect, no. Is he right a lot? Who knows, he is not the decision maker. I love watching the show though cuz' it gets me thinking. I don't like people who don't respect him soley because of his "right" slant. I will listen to anyone, left or right, if they make sense and are always objective. I then form my own opinions.

So, in that case, yeah, I love watching the Factor!

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 10:04 am: Edit

Vancat, I'm not sure what Bill's position is. I don't think he discusses it much. I'm sort of guessing he is leaning slightly towards life, after all he is a traditionist :-)

By Vancat (Vancat) on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 11:42 am: Edit

oh wait, you were talking about Bill O'reiillys position? I thought you were asking about Bush's posiition on abortion. nvm.

By Simba (Simba) on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 11:51 am: Edit

Ndb: re-read the posts after your comment,"That's like saying Bush stands for nothing."

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 01:10 pm: Edit

"does he stand for anything?"
I thought you were referring back to Bill ! Everybody sure as heck knows Bush's position. After all he'd sign all the Lacy laws he can get his hands on!

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 01:12 pm: Edit

Addendum... by freedom of choice I meant the freedom to make our own decisions with minimum government intervention (lassie fair . I didn't mean freedom to choose life or choice.

By Alexandre (Alexandre) on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 01:21 pm: Edit

That would be "laissez faire"...Collies have nothing to do with economic freedom! hehe

By Appliedmath (Appliedmath) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 08:08 pm: Edit

He's actually good at making counter statements, but we all know he isn't an independent

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 01:20 am: Edit

Anyone who is not a member of a party is an independent. He is an independent. Do you think he is a member of a party? Remember, independent does not mean moderate.

By Riflesforwatie (Riflesforwatie) on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 10:22 pm: Edit

Actually Bill O'Reilly WAS a registered Republican until early December 2000, when he claimed to be a registered independent but was in fact found out to be a Republican:


"Robert Reich, the former labor secretary and a frequent guest on "The Factor," says O'Reilly always gives him a "fair hearing" even though he often finds O'Reilly's commentaries "180 degrees wrong, absurd and stupid." He calls O'Reilly "an obvious conservative Republican. But he can't say [he is] on the air. . . . He can't have his perch and be an avowed conservative Republican."

In fact, O'Reilly was a registered Republican until last week. O'Reilly acknowledges that since 1994 he was listed on the Republican voting rolls in Nassau County, where he lives. But he says it was the result of a clerical mistake, which he's rectified. "I've always been an independent," he says. "I always split my ticket. I vote for the person I think is best.""


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62722-2000Dec12?language=printer

By Songman (Songman) on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 10:29 pm: Edit

O'Reilly is not far right. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are far right. Anyone that listens to O'Reilly radio will realize that he is not far right. Many of his politcal positions are middle of the road, not far right! Unfortunately the liberals and the media have labeled him as such. And heaven forbid you ever say you are religious in this country,then you are immediately labeled "Far Right". All hogwash to me!

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 11:24 pm: Edit

Rush and Hannity are not far right. They are middle conservatives. Far right would be a libertarian. Unlike a libertarian, hanitty would not obolish public schools, welfare, social security, medicare and the like.

By Annakat (Annakat) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 03:24 am: Edit

o'reilly, hannity, and rush are laughing all the way to the bank! they're making millions with their punditry that sells. how do you think rush can afford an expensive prescription drug addiction?

By Riflesforwatie (Riflesforwatie) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 08:27 am: Edit

"hanitty would not obolish public schools, welfare, social security, medicare and the like."


Really?

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 11:18 am: Edit

Didja know O'reilly used to write soft porn? Hee hee hee.

By Shortcakefairy (Shortcakefairy) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 12:03 am: Edit

O'reilly is great! underneath all that arrogance and annoying-ness, he is charismatic and has a great insight on so many things. His leaning to the right is a breath of fresh air amidst all the stuffiness of the blatantly liberal media.

hahaha the fact that he used to write soft porn does not surprise me at all. He's most likely a fan of hardcore stuff too! I heard that after a Jenna Jameson interview (where he was supposedly questioning the moral implications of her career) he joked about wanting to be sent some of her stuff or something.

By Bobmarley (Bobmarley) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 12:25 am: Edit

I would kick his ass if it wasn't massively illegal.


Report an offensive message on this page    E-mail this page to a friend
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page