|
|
 |
crumple1 |
+ |
Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 12:55 AM I love and enjoy Loveline and the Oreilly Factor. Does that make me retarded...?
Loveline is a comedy gem. Adam's "on the fly" comedic genius is highly underrated (he's WAY funnier than Kimmel, sorry Jimmy) and a lot of people discount what Drew adds to the mix. Just a great show!
Oreilly is an acquired taste. People paint him as a blowhard, arrogant and mean. He can be those things but he's also a guy who is not scared to ask the tough questions. He asks his guests direct questions (usually questions you and me would like answered) and does not tolerate BS. The only time he interrupts is when the guests are dodging the questions by speeches or tries to change the subject. He tends to approach a lot of issues using "common sense".
The best kept secret about Oreilly's show is ... IT CAN BE FUNNY AS HELL! Especially the last segment where he reads the love/hate email he gets... they can be priceless.
All I'm saying is, if you want some news analysis that is smart, fair and entertaining, give the Oreilly Factor a peep. It can be GREAT COMEDY to see powerfull politicians and slimy lawyers WRIGGLE and SWEAT trying to answer no-BS questions.
If you prefer "softball" interviews where guests can just spout out their views without being challenged, go watch that pussy Larry King...:) —crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Mason Jar |
+ |
Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 6:03 AM Make the switch from O'Reilly to Chris Matthews Hardball. Matthews actually has experience in politics and news, whereas O'Reilly is more of a sensationalist who used to work for Inside Edition. —Mr. Mason Jar |
|
|
|
|
thejoeinme |
+ |
Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 6:17 AM "Bill O'Reilly is the best reason for censorship I've ever seen." - Larry Flynt He's not funny in the least. The reason he might come off that way is probably because he'll never invite onto his show someone who can actually speak up and defend their views, ie someone with half a brain. He invites either people who completely agree with him and therefore kiss his ass, or he'll invite someone who couldn't talk his way out of a paper bag and just completely destroy him. He needs to be shot. —thejoeinme |
|
|
|
|
Colin |
+ |
Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 7:56 AM Yeah, o'reilly's a saint...
Partial Transcript: The O'Reilly Factor 2-4-03
O'REILLY: In the "Personal Stories" segment tonight, we were surprised to find out than an American who lost his father in the World Trade Center attack had signed an anti-war advertisement that accused the USA itself of terrorism. The offending passage read, "We too watched with shock the horrific events of September 11... we too mourned the thousands of innocent dead and shook our heads at the terrible scenes of carnage -- even as we recalled similar scenes in Baghdad, Panama City, and a generation ago, Vietnam." With us now is Jeremy Glick, whose father, Barry, was a Port Authority worker at the Trade Center. Mr. Glick is a co-author of the book "Another World is Possible." I'm surprised you signed this. You were the only one of all of the families who signed... JEREMY GLICK: Well, actually, that's not true. O'REILLY: Who signed the advertisement? GLICK: Peaceful Tomorrow, which represents 9/11 families, were also involved. O'REILLY: Hold it, hold it, hold it, Jeremy. You're the only one who signed this advertisement. GLICK: As an individual. O'REILLY: Yes, as -- with your name. You were the only one. I was surprised, and the reason I was surprised is that this ad equates the United States with the terrorists. And I was offended by that. GLICK: Well, you say -- I remember earlier you said it was a moral equivalency, and it's actually a material equivalency. And just to back up for a second about your surprise, I'm actually shocked that you're surprised. If you think about it, our current president, who I feel and many feel is in this position illegitimately by neglecting the voices of Afro- Americans in the Florida coup, which, actually, somebody got impeached for during the Reconstruction period -- Our current president now inherited a legacy from his father and inherited a political legacy that's responsible for training militarily, economically, and situating geopolitically the parties involved in the alleged assassination and the murder of my father and countless of thousands of others. So I don't see why it's surprising... O'REILLY: All right. Now let me stop you here. So... GLICK: ... for you to think that I would come back and want to support... O'REILLY: It is surprising, and I'll tell you why. I'll tell you why it's surprising. GLICK: ... escalating... O'REILLY: You are mouthing a far left position that is a marginal position in this society, which you're entitled to. GLICK: It's marginal -- right. O'REILLY: You're entitled to it, all right, but you're -- you see, even -- I'm sure your beliefs are sincere, but what upsets me is I don't think your father would be approving of this. GLICK: Well, actually, my father thought that Bush's presidency was illegitimate. O'REILLY: Maybe he did, but... GLICK: I also didn't think that Bush... O'REILLY: ... I don't think he'd be equating this country as a terrorist nation as you are. GLICK: Well, I wasn't saying that it was necessarily like that. O'REILLY: Yes, you are. You signed... GLICK: What I'm saying is... O'REILLY: ... this, and that absolutely said that. GLICK: ... is that in -- six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government. O'REILLY: All right. I don't want to... GLICK: Maybe... O'REILLY: I don't want to debate world politics with you. GLICK: Well, why not? This is about world politics. O'REILLY: Because, No. 1, I don't really care what you think. GLICK: Well, OK. O'REILLY: You're -- I want to... GLICK: But you do care because you... O'REILLY: No, no. Look... GLICK: The reason why you care is because you evoke 9/11... O'REILLY: Here's why I care. GLICK: ... to rationalize... O'REILLY: Here's why I care... GLICK: Let me finish. You evoke 9/11 to rationalize everything from domestic plunder to imperialistic aggression worldwide. O'REILLY: OK. That's a bunch... GLICK: You evoke sympathy with the 9/11 families. O'REILLY: That's a bunch of crap. I've done more for the 9/11 families by their own admission -- I've done more for them than you will ever hope to do. GLICK: OK. O'REILLY: So you keep your mouth shut when you sit here exploiting those people. GLICK: Well, you're not representing me. You're not representing me. O'REILLY: And I'd never represent you. You know why? GLICK: Why? O'REILLY: Because you have a warped view of this world and a warped view of this country. GLICK: Well, explain that. Let me give you an example of a parallel... O'REILLY: No, I'm not going to debate this with you, all right. GLICK: Well, let me give you an example of parallel experience. On September 14... O'REILLY: No, no. Here's -- here's the... GLICK: On September 14... O'REILLY: Here's the record. GLICK: OK. O'REILLY: All right. You didn't support the action against Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. You were against it, OK. GLICK: Why would I want to brutalize and further punish the people in Afghanistan... O'REILLY: Who killed your father! GLICK: The people in Afghanistan... O'REILLY: Who killed your father. GLICK: ... didn't kill my father. O'REILLY: Sure they did. The al Qaeda people were trained there. GLICK: The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people? O'REILLY: See, I'm more angry about it than you are! GLICK: So what about George Bush? O'REILLY: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it. GLICK: The director -- senior as director of the CIA. O'REILLY: He had nothing to do with it. GLICK: So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who were... O'REILLY: Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this. GLICK: Well, I hope she is. O'REILLY: I hope your mother is not watching this because you -- that's it. I'm not going to say anymore. GLICK: OK. O'REILLY: In respect for your father... GLICK: On September 14, do you want to know what I'm doing? O'REILLY: Shut up. Shut up. GLICK: Oh, please don't tell me to shut up. O'REILLY: As respect -- as respect -- in respect for your father, who was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed unnecessarily by barbarians... GLICK: By radical extremists who were trained by this government... O'REILLY: Out of respect for him... GLICK: ... not the people of America. O'REILLY: ... I'm not going to... GLICK: ... The people of the ruling class, the small minority. O'REILLY: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of respect for your father. We will be back in a moment with more of THE FACTOR. GLICK: That means we're done? O'REILLY: We're done. Then this happened right before the commercial break: What you can not see here because it's a text transcript, is right after O'Reilly said "we're done" he made two motions with his hand. He (O'Reilly) waved at someone off camera as to say come here and get him (referring to Jeremy Glick) then he did a move with his thumb, he held his right thumb up and raised it up in a short little motion. It's as if he were hitch-hiking, like get him outta here. I am guessing he was telling someone on his staff or his bodyguard to throw Glick out of the studio. Here's the sickening apology quote O'Reilly gave after the commercials: OREILLY: "I have to apologize. If I knew that guy, Jeremy Glick, was going to be like that, I never would have brought him in here, and I feel bad for his family. I really do. " The truly sad part is that if Mr. Glick were pro-bush and pro-war, and agreed with o'reilly, he would have been allowed to say whatever he wanted to, in the so-called no spin zone, and he would have been treated with total respect. Since he did not hold those positions he was told to shut up and shut your mouth and cut his mic off. I guess it's only a no-spin zone when you agree with o'reilly or his views. This is from the same guy (O'Reilly) who just the night before accused a man from takebackthemedia.com of trying to violate Rush Limbaugh's free speech rights by calling for everyone to boycott his sponsors. Which "as an american" he has the right to do, boycotts are a tradition and a right in america.Yet when Mr. Glick tried to state his views and opinions on the factor, Mr. "free speech" Bill O'Reilly told him to shut up, shut up, you just shut your mouth. So much for free speech on the factor. —Colin |
|
|
|
|
Nosuchsoul |
+ |
Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 11:37 AM
Edited Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 11:38 AM Seems from the transcript the Glick dude would not let O'Reilly defend his own position. —Nosuchsoul |
|
|
|
|
crumple1 |
+ |
Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 12:03 PM The guy was espousing that AMERICA was responsible for 9-11. He was clearly a radical nut using his father's death to crap on the US. His arguments and speeches were not based on facts, so Oreilly cut him off, as he should. I read all the negatives on Oreilly but when I read the transcripts, I see a fair, tough interview. I don't get it ... —crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
crumple1 |
+ |
Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 12:07 PM "Bill O'Reilly is the best reason for censorship I've ever seen." - Larry Flynt He's not funny in the least. The reason he might come off that way is probably because he'll never invite onto his show someone who can actually speak up and defend their views, ie someone with half a brain. He invites either people who completely agree with him and therefore kiss his ass, or he'll invite someone who couldn't talk his way out of a paper bag and just completely destroy him. He needs to be shot. —thejoeinme DOes than mean Drew is an imbecile? He has been to Oreilly's show a few timmes...: ) —crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
MajandraFan |
+ |
Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 1:33 PM That Glick guy seemed to be well spoken, with O'reilly saying 'shut up, shut up' several times, and always to well said points. Why didn't O'reilly counter any points or ask any questions that might bring those points into disrepute? He doesn't seem like a man who can think on his feet.
I wonder if Glick was as composed as he seemed in text.
You can't rationalise emotion, or with emotional people. —MajandraFan |
|
|
|
|
Colin |
+ |
Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 2:10 PM The guy was espousing that AMERICA was responsible for 9-11. He was clearly a radical nut using his father's death to crap on the US. His arguments and speeches were not based on facts, so Oreilly cut him off, as he should. I read all the negatives on Oreilly but when I read the transcripts, I see a fair, tough interview. I don't get it ...
Actually, American governments have set up governments and been supporters of "the other side" in many wars and regional conflicts. Have you ever heard the term, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"? It's a little thing that led to us support Saddam against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. Hell, Reagan gave Saddam the gas he used on the Kurds in the 80's. "Saddam used poison gas on his own people." - Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, etc... Telling the anti Saddam factions that Bush 41 would support their uprising against Saddam after Iraq 1991 and then pulling out all support to let them be overrun by Saddam's loyalists. Supporting OBL and the rest of his army against the Soviets in Afghanistan starting in the late 70's.
I wouldn't say that America was responsible for 9/11. But, these sort of "little meddling affairs" that our government gets involved in do nothing but create resentment. Coupled with some religion, we've got a mess.
—Colin |
|
|
|
|
crumple1 |
+ |
Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 3:44 PM sure the US does not have a perfect record. as for the argument about US supporting Saddam before, it must have been the thing to do at that time in history. i mean a lot of decisions are about the LESSER EVIL, right?
BTW, we supported STALIN also during WWII against the Germans and look what a DICK he turned out to be. we can't control or predict how people or nations will turn out... —crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
goodtimes3 |
+ |
Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 4:33 PM we knew stalin was a dick, just as he knew we were dicks, but we had to unite to fight the BIG dick in hitler. its not like we loved the USSR, weve always hated them, we attempted to stop the bolshevik revolution, we havent seen eye to eye since, + the fact that our political, economic plans are the most opposite one can be. oh and btw o' lielly is an ass, a debate show should not have a person on a higher position than the other, like with the power to cut some ones mic b/c youre getting owned. im SURE that o lielly knew how great glicks dad was and how he thought, what a pompus ass. —goodtimes3 |
|
|
|
|
redsmith007 |
+ |
Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 4:58 PM o'reilly is a blowhard hipocrite like limbaugh. where does he stand on illegal drugs? he's a flip flopper, and a prick
—redsmith007 |
|
|
|
|
Colin |
+ |
Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 5:29 PM sure the US does not have a perfect record. as for the argument about US supporting Saddam before, it must have been the thing to do at that time in history. i mean a lot of decisions are about the LESSER EVIL, right?
BTW, we supported STALIN also during WWII against the Germans and look what a DICK he turned out to be. we can't control or predict how people or nations will turn out... You need to bone up on some history; hella quick. Saddam was a dick before it was expeditious to arm him to defeat the Iranians. Fucking believe it. According to your president, there is no lesser evil. EVERYTHING is black and white to him. That's why Kerry is such as easy target on the ummmm, liquidity of his positions... —Colin |
|
|
|
|
crumple1 |
+ |
Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 5:32 PM like i said... CHOICE of LESSER EVILS ... —crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
Dark Laith |
+ |
Thursday, September 16, 2004 at 6:56 AM Your repitition of that statement makes me think you didn't read his post at all. Did you? —Dark Laith |
|
|
|
|
crumple1 |
+ |
Friday, September 17, 2004 at 12:15 AM i barely have a pulse to type...let alone read...what's that place they borrow out books, but tdoesn't have the word "book" in it? —crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
crumple1 |
+ |
Friday, September 17, 2004 at 12:58 AM Bill Oreilly is going to interview GEORGE BUSH next week. Even if you despise Oreilly, he does ask the tough questions and is not intimidated by anybody. Might be worth checking out... —crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
MajandraFan |
+ |
Sunday, September 19, 2004 at 11:19 PM (If that transcript is representative)
Tough questions: shut up!
Not intimidated by anyone: shut off the mike! (because an ordinary guy has Bill tongue-tied) —MajandraFan |
|
|
|
|
GDG |
+ |
Monday, September 20, 2004 at 8:51 PM It's also well known that O'Reilly's producers edit the show after it tapes to make him look good. A few times where I've watched it they've gotten a bit sloppy with it the editing where it was evident. Who can blame him? What TV presenter won't edit things to make themselves look good? However, he presents himself as a cocksure guy who's not scared of anyone which is a bit higher on the hypocrite scale. The guy is basically a British-style "me first" tabloid reporter who likes to pander to his audience while pushing his own agenda and use his popularity to justify what he does. —GDG |
|
|
|
|
GDG |
+ |
Monday, September 20, 2004 at 9:08 PM
Edited Monday, September 20, 2004 at 9:14 PM >Bill Oreilly is going to interview GEORGE BUSH next week. Even if you despise Oreilly, he does ask the tough questions and is not intimidated by anybody. Might be worth checking out. Will he let Bush's handlers the ability to force an edit his interview like they did with the exclusive Meet the Press interview that he did on NBC earlier this year? Reportedly, there was a lot of hemming and hawing, and blank looks that were cut out that made George Bush look less than commanding. Most news organizations are willing to compromise on such in order to get the big name guest since ratings are what they are after. (O'Reilly, for exmaple, likes to talk about how popular he is) Since Fox News is Republican, (the head of Fox News is a Republican who was a friend and adviser of GB's father) I don't think there's any way that Bush will not have a good interview from O'Reilly. Bush's people will probably get O'Reilly's questions a few days before, (not from O'Reilly himself but from his producers) so he can dutifully prepare the best spin on the hot topics that O'Reilly has been mildly critical of Bush like WMD and his lack of forthcoming on his Nat'l Guard days. —GDG |
|
|
|
|
Faygo |
+ |
Saturday, October 2, 2004 at 1:52 PM he didn't ask tough questions to Bush. SHOCKING! —Faygo |
|
|
|
|
Colin |
+ |
Saturday, October 2, 2004 at 3:44 PM Bzzzzzzt!!!!! Shocking indeed... —Colin |
|
|
|
|
piesore |
+ |
Sunday, October 3, 2004 at 4:34 AM Where did Glick say America was responsible for 9/11?
Glick stated in the documentary, Outfoxed, that he was combative, because he watched the O'Reilly show and saw how long guests with which O'Rielly didn't agree with could talk before getting cut off, using an actual stopwatch.
So he prepared his main statement in that first paragraph right there.
also,
"six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government." That's a fact, whether or not you agree with his interpretation of the events are your own opinion, but the event happened, as well as others he mentioned. —piesore |
|
|
|
|
salemthepocketfox |
+ |
Sunday, October 3, 2004 at 10:17 AM 'why is the country so divided'
'what will you do about iran'
'do you really think there's a chance of stable democracy in Iraq' [or words to that effect] no, not hard questions at all!....? —salemthepocketfox |
|
|
|
|
Faygo |
+ |
Sunday, October 3, 2004 at 4:51 PM
Edited Sunday, October 3, 2004 at 4:52 PM What are you thinking about Stem Cell Research? Are you that much of a religious tard?!
Why didn't you focus on getting Osama Bin Laden?
Why didn't you have a post war plan?
THOSE ARE HARD QUESTIONS!
What are you gonna do about Iran, why are we divide? Those are hard questions? If you think they're hard questions you must be a tard.
—Faygo |
|
|
|
|
anona |
+ |
Sunday, October 3, 2004 at 6:16 PM salemthepocketfox, the questions weren't bad but bush had a canned response for all of those and you could see that oreilly didn't want to push him on it when he gave an unsatisfactory answer. He probably didn't think it was polite to do his normal "in your face" techniques, so we just get the same crappy "politician answers" to all the questions —anona |
|
|
|
|
ZT-In-Thought |
+ |
Thursday, December 14, 2006 at 3:04 AM OutFOXed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism (Interviews)
"Outfoxed" examines how media empires, led by Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, have been running a "race to the bottom" in television news. This film provides an in-depth look at Fox News and the dangers of ever-enlarging corporations taking control of the public's right to know. The film explores Murdoch's burgeoning kingdom and the impact on society when a broad swath of media is controlled by one person. Media experts, including Jeff Cohen (FAIR) Bob McChesney (Free Press), Chellie Pingree (Common Cause), Jeff Chester (Center for Digital Democracy) and David Brock (Media Matters) provide context and guidance for the story of Fox News and its effect on society. This documentary also reveals the secrets of Former Fox news producers, reporters, bookers and writers who expose what it's like to work for Fox News. These former Fox employees talk about how they were forced to push a "right-wing" point of view or risk their jobs. Some have even chosen to remain anonymous in order to protect their current livelihoods. As one employee said "There's no sense of integrity as far as having a line that can't be crossed." Interviews licensed by Brave New Films for remixing: Creative Commons Sampling Plus (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/) Official Site: http://www.outfoxed.org/
—ZT-In-Thought |
|
|
|
|
Stryker311 |
+ |
Thursday, December 14, 2006 at 5:05 PM The o'reilly factor is awesome, I watch it a lot —Stryker311 |
|
|
|
|