Hahaha, he cites a lawsuit filed by the far-right network in which he has a vested interest as an example of what a danger the stimulus package was... I don't find Fox news to be a credible source on anything other than right-winged progression-bashing capitalist-loving propaganda. Bill loves saying "social-engineering," it's a good fear phrase.
"BILL O'RELLY SPINS STIMULUS PLAN" the title of the video on the OFFICIAL CBS youtube channel, I hope the libs can stop telling me that the mainstream media is not left wing!!
Rosie was right. we need a real independent investigation into 911. Many witnesses reported explosions inside the buildings. 19 Muslims with boxcutters? Oh please give me a break. Also You Tube WTC 7 Collapse and it looks like a controlled demolition. You Tube WTC 7 Collapse now and judge for yourself.
You are completely and totally mistaken in this assertion. My job is to evaluate arguments and decipher techniques and points in structured debates.
The tactics Bill uses are ad hominem attacks, yelling to make his point more assertive and using himself and other conservatives as fallacies referencing authorities.
Along with this he uses his old tactics that are classic tactics: quote mining, inventing facts, and belittling opponents who he deems weaker.
i don`t share his views.. i know he is smart and biased! I just see him as puppet of the "divide and conquer" show.. witch makes the right fight against the left, while the elite is ruling untouched!!
his arguments are into bringing up the difference between conservatives and liberals, not into bringing up the difference between right and wrong..
the "best" about O`R is when the man is denouncing pacifists for lack of "patriotism" and as being a "danger" to this country... and expects you to support the (neverending) war in afghanistan & Iraq, without sending his children to war...
the man saying the WMD in Iraq is no lie, because the president didn`t know.. :-)
disorting the Geneva Convention and calling waterboarding no torture after we executed ppl who did it to our soldiers..
You're from Germany so you should know the dangers of pacifism. I'll refresh your memory:
Neville Chamberlain, a British Prime minister signed a peace contract with Hitler and declared the "Peace of our time" when he returned to England. The next day Hitler started WW2; he had no intention of keeping the agreement.
Al-Qaida, like Hitler, has no interest in peace. They prove that over and over.
Pacifists are like Neville Chamberlain: very naive do-gooders.
you wrt: "The far-left is pretty much in a modern day Chamberlain mentality."
this is what i ment with the "divide and conquer" show:-)
The other European countries were "harbouring enemies" (jews), so the nazis "took'em out." (notice the parallel)
... OBL was sponsored by the CIA to fight the russians.. Saddam was sponsored to fight against Iran and the kurdish population.. now we are supposed to believe they are "bad, real enemies" like Adolf Hitler:-)
Excuse me, but this is not a practice in moral relativism. You're basically equating Hitler's position against Jews with Bush & Obama positions against Al-Qaida.
The Al-Qaida that intentionally kills Afhgans and Iraqis.
I can't help find you your moral compass - that's on you.
Funny how a country that had the most evil man in the 20th century brainwash them, now 60 years laters stands idly by against evil once again. Things haven't changed that much, have they? Sad.
I`m not representing my country here (you either).
90% of our population is against these wars, we have ISAF-Troops in Afghanistan!
the parallels are:
enableing act= patriot act
reichstag-fire = 911
Göring/propaganda = cheney/Fox Noise
don`t question= follow
NWO = NWO
Things changed.. we didn`t know about Geneva Convention 70 years ago the USA thought us what it ment.. now we had a bush saying it is "vague" and Fox starting a brainwash campaign on waterboarding and how it "keeps America safe"
Al-Qaida has no respect for the Geneva Convention; They kill civilians, intentionally, and dress as civilians.
In 9/11 attacks they killed more people than the Japanese did on Pearl Harbor. And they almost succeeded in hitting the White House. It was, de facto, a declaration of war, that Osama Bin Laden declared on America back in 1998.
You're confusing defense against evil with evil itself. Waterboarding helped capture more terrorists.
500 words not enough to answer on the issues you cut here.. I`m not confusing anything!
GC was respected during ww2 and the "cold war", when you could say there were real tough enemies to fight against.. now against couple of hundred alqueda: waterboarding "kept america safe":-)
Lowering your standards to Alqueda`s moral values, or using it as excuse... sad!
the iraq and afghan war lasted longer than ww2, ever thought about not being there for OBL (Tim Osman) the "boogie excuse-man"...
Waterboarding was used only on 3 people and hasn't been used since 2004.
While it is true that these terrorist organizations don't have millions of members, you have to keep in mind that it's ideology is spread with violence, fear, and a perversion of Islam.
If they get to control a country like Afghanistan or Iraq they would also acquire oil and with that money. Then it will be only a matter of time before they develop nukes, or smuggle a nuclear war head through Mexico and set it off.
fox news used to say it was used on 3 ppl, but this is very far from the truth... remember abu graib? not to say about the number of suspects who died in us-custody.. than there is a national security directive that doesn`t allow the public exposure of pics that have been made on different torture occasions (though i agree that not all might have been about waterboarding)..
I agree there is a islamic-extremist threat, though i don`t see "going to war" as a weapon against a terrorist-ideology!
sure you have a very strong anti-terrorist military "delta force" trained to fight terrorists .. going to war against 2 countries sounds like occupying italy and austria because of the mafia from sicily,
i heard about the "few bad apples" excuse.. not nice when you ask your men to follow orders and than leave them alone, when the whole thing turns sour.. your leadership failed you!
wasn`t suggesting peace talks with OBL, was rather suggesting the tactics is wrong (delta force was trained to fight these terrorists) and i was comparing the Iraq-Afghanistan invasion tactic-logic with invading Italy because of the mafia;. just like you compared alqueda to hitler, you can agree with it or not..
but sure would be interresting to know how deep the bush-binladen connection goes? why the binladen family was allowed to leave the usa during the "no fly" days, what they (52) were doing there in the first place... if bush was ever financed by saudis or binladen..why he is not on the FBI most wanted list for 911? who messed up at tora-bora? exactly how many american soldiers/marines were sent after binladen in the beginning of this war?!
The Sicialian mafia is not controling Italy's politics, nither does it participiate in blowing up citizens or forcing people to believe it's ideology, something that would happen if US left Iraq and Al-Qaida got to reign there.
As a policy with dealing with evil, that wants to take over the world, Hitler's Nazis and Al-Qaida are pretty much the same.
By my correspondence with you I see you're very fond of conspiracy theories.
You have no arguments - or facts - only conspiracy questions.
1. according to the FBI's Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb, "The FBI has NO hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11." and he is NOT on the FBI most wanted list: For 911
2. Bush`s company "Arbusto" got money from the Binladens.
3. OBL was supported during the russian occupation of afghanistan.
4. 52 Binladens were living in the USA and escorted out without interrogation on the 13-14.11.01
5. USA spend more than the next 19 nations combined on military
6. acc. to Vincent Bugliosi no american soldiers was sent after OBL at Tora Bora.
7. these wars lasted longer than ww2..
if there something we learned from ww2 it is: to question authority! Never ever again follow blindly some leader... anyone!!
i think Jefferson or Adams said something similar! sure this doesn`t go well with being in the army, were you have to follow without questioning anything...
you could have used the word "conspiracy", if i wrote you are at war for oil!!
We're dealing with radical 'muslims' who are also killing other fellow Muslims (Iraqis, Afghans, Turks..). So it's not just against the "immoral west" it's against fellow Muslims as well.
All in the name of 'Allah the merciful'...
And, I'm afraid we've only seen the beginning of this. A small precentege of Muslims in Europe and United States are being radicalized as we speak.
calling facts "conspiracy theories" ... are you running out of arguments:-)
there is a muslim extremist threat no doubt...
but jumping from a terrorist attack to invading 2 countries:-) there is no excuse for that , not to mention that it is against UN-Charta as well...
sure, "exporting democracy" sounds great, but setting moral western standards in Iraq-Afghanistan won`t work, you don`t have to be a professor to know that...
This is not a war against those two countries you pinhead. If the terrorist wouldn't be attacking civilians, as they do, intentionally, there would be no need for them to still be there.
You don't need to be a rocket scientists to figure that out.
And btw, your brilliant UN officials were getting paid by Hussein in the 'food for oil' program a while back to keep quiet and support him.
lets see... there was a terrorist group (alqueda) who attacked the US... so you went to afghanistan to get them, but they left that country and your president thought, while you are there, lets bring them democracy, they will love us for that.. but the ppl living there didn`t like foreigners invading their country for whatever reason, so they (taliban) decided to fight the ppl who wanted to bring them western democracy... does it get any better??? sent more troops, bring them more democracy!!
You left out that Afghanistan in 2001 was a country controlled by terrorist and the had the biggest terrorist training grounds in the middle east, which the US destroyed.
The Taliban was in charge and basicly it was the same ppl the US helped to kick russian ass.. it was the legitimate ruler of that country and had nothing "directly" to do with binladen/alqueda..
by calling everyone a "terrorist" creates only more confusion..
depends on your prospective, but they call themselves "freedom fighters" and they claim they are fighting against foreign occupation troops...
anyway.. whatever these extremists do, it`s their "sharia-law" and as long as they do it between themselves it`s their f. problem...
you don`t have to risk your lives for them.. i know ppl like you have the best intentions, but it`s not going to lead to a good result... this "protection" of civilians often leads to casualties...
alqueda is gone and afghanistan is "taliban-land"... there is no way you can bring them democracy.. leave now!!
i don`t care what chomsky said.. there is no future for this occupation (war)... you can call it "mission impossible".. it`s not worth it... and it doesn`t matter if you are democrat or republican to realize that!! over 8 years and no end at the horizon... the paparazzi who was made president doesn`t care for his ppl.
it`s like playing in a casino.. the earlier you leave the better for you, you will loose less...
It's not just Sharia Law, that is the opposite of just about every human right, that is the problem here.
The reason I mention Chomsky is because your position is about the same. "Get out of there." Without regard of the concurrences, which would be: Gencoide, taking over of oil supplies (money) by terrorist, bribing of nuclear scientists with that money, acquiring various bombs, uninterrupted terrorist training..
A lot more people would be dying, if we let that happen. Get me?
i don`t need chomsky to have my own view... your gov. sustained these ppl and lots of dictators around the world including saddam! now your gov. doesn`t like these ppl anymore and sends you to "correct" the situation! when genocide was going on in africa, us-presidents were looking the other way: this sounds like double-standard to me!
does oil have to do with it?!
back in the time of other empires, they claimed to bring civilisation to the occupied territories..
we... and this includes my country as well, let 24.000 ppl die every day of hunger! sharia-law as well as other barbaric punishments were common in the arab world for decades! saudi arabia and kuwait does it as well.. but we protected them from saddam, without ever asking them to stop these methods... this is what i mean with double standard and moral position to play "big brother" on this planet.. yes you are right this should stop, no doubt.. but why not start with the saudis..
Saudi government does not pose a threat to worldwide peace.
If you want to end poverty, start by donating your own money to charity. But, as you may well know, a lot of that money will be stolen by African thugs.
The problem is not that the world doesn't help Africa.. they help them a plenty! But man, some of those folks become depended on that help...
People have to help themselfs.
The problem is not that the world is not helping, they do, it's their mentality.
you say it: "People have to help themselfs" .. why doesn`t it count for iraqis and afghans as well..
sure you named one of the major problems with ending hunger.. but we are not willing to interfear and eliminate those thugs who steal from our help.. this makes iraq-afghanistan a double standard policy!
we had a chance to influence the saudis and kuweitis after we helped them, sure they are no threat for world peace, but they would have listened..
as i said before, i believe you are a honest person who believes he is doing the right thing and we can agree or disagree, if what you are doing is the right thing..
but i don`t trust your govt. not bush and not obama..
they are politicians, they would do or say anything to reach their goals, they would misuse you and sacrifice you for their agenda..
i will share with you some vids these days, if you don`t mind and if you are allowed..
Is this the very same Obama many of your ilk couldn't see as ever becoming president? The same Obama that hit your sorry asses like a freight train and dumbfounded for answers?
Reagan? The cowboy that made clowns like you "feel good", all the while taking this country from a creditor nation to a debtor nation in just eight years? The clown who left homelessness and unprecedented debt as his legacy? That Reagan? Care to name one -- ONE -- policy that Reagan left to better this country?
Fact is Obama has signed a stimulus (future debt) bigger than an other president including W. You can't spend your way out of debt, regardless how we got here. He is supposed to "change" our government but he is just really carrying on what Bush was doing. More spending, more nation building and more government.
I guess I missed it, but what stimulus package did either "W' or Reagan sign into law? I mean, there must be something to show for the unprecedented debt they BOTH straddled future generations with. Suddenly people like you are worried about debt, but convenient give Repugs a pass?
And don't put words in Obama's mouth. What Obama generally meant by change during his campaign is not following the same downward spiral idiots like Reagan and "W" put us in -- their priorities and philosophies iow.
You missed the last 2 stimulus spending packages that Bush signed into law last year? I dont know why i'm even talking with you about this. It's clear you've been fooled to think that Obama is different than Bush
And if tax cuts and an overbearing government (regulations) are what really kill business and stifle entrepreneurship, which is what I believe you are implying and are for, why didn't "W" or Reagan's methods work? Care to show me how a tax cut for the wealthy builds a bridge, or restores a program for the needy?If you despise government so much, why don't you move? This is one of the least regulated industrialized countries anywhere. Would you turn to Rush or Billo for aid after a hurricane?
We need to cut taxes, but only if we are going to cut government spending. We spend a trillion dollars a year blowing up bridges in Iraq then rebuilding them. I would rather that money not support our empire abroad and be used here in America.
O'Reilly has chunks of Olbermann, Maddow and that joke of a morning show on CBS in his stool. O'Reilly's artings consistantly top all these clown shows combined.
You leftist political morons only wish you had ratings on PMSNBC
Limbaugh supposedly has great ratings and a large audience too, but what did his daily ranting mean to the Republican party in this past election -- on any front? You losers, who claimed Obama didn't stand a chance, are suddenly finding yourselves for something to believe in, such as a pill poppin', overweight, divisive buffoon, like Limbaugh, or the cowardly tinhorn O'Reilly, who will only appear on shows that lob him softballs, and also won't ask him on his sexual harrassment suit.
You want to see the folks be ok, O'Reilly?! Do me a favor and youtube search Ron Paul. He will tell you how to fix things, and what not to do which starts with spending 800 billion on a stupid "Stimulus" package that will only put us into more debt.
I'll second that. But one thing I cannot figure is why so few of us see Dr. Paul's wisdom & common sense? Dare I use the word "common," if less than 1% of the country sees it the same way?
Because Paul's "wisdom and common sense" is non-existent for the most part. No politician or person has a magic wand to magically fix things like they present them. He hit a nerve with many Americans -- both Left and Right -- with his observations and views on an unpopular costly war, but even a broken watch is right twice a day. He wouldn't be electable on the majority of his views.
Nobody said Ron Paul had a magic wand, but the "nerve" you claim that he struck is very much a magic wand of influence.
He has a lot more to say about a lot more than just the war. You should read/watch more of him.
It's tragic that you say he's not electable. He's too smart for most of the sheep to understand him. George Bush got elected twice -- why? Because half of the country has a below average IQ, just like him. That explains why people related to (and voted for) Bush.
The only thing Ron Paul was right about, was the illegal, immoral, unprovoked, treasury busting Iraq war; he has Looney tune views on just about everything else. His war stance was the reason for his popularity. He hit a nerve, even with Republicans. He wouldn't be electable on most of his other positions.
Reagan left this country unprecedented debt, compounded by the idiot Dubya. Care to provide me of an example of REAL fiscal conservatism? Was the debt an issue when "W" took us to war?
Solomon writes for Conservative rags, and he is also one who is skeptical of global warming, etc. Should anyone be shocked that one neocon would support another?
The most coveted demographic(s) that network shows seek are the 18-49, and the 25-54 age groups. These are the biggest spenders according to their studies. O'Reilly has neither of these. His largest demographic is the 45-64 demo. It seems that the younger cohorts see through his BS.
Tell me, who does your thinking when O'Reilly is off the air? Which Conservative talk radio host takes over?
Yes, go to the Nielsen ratings guide and tell me that O'reilly draws in more viewers than any -- ANY -- of the big three networks during the prime time evening newcasts. Why was it that Americans OVERWHELMINGLY turned to the Big Three networks for their news and coverage of 9/11?
Ha-ha. Another idiot who looks to a fraud for his information. No wonder most of his viewers are so ignorant.
Popularity does not make one right. Some of the most odious, hateful, vile people that ever existed had a large following. What makes O'Reilly popular is that he has taken talk radio to the screen. He throws out red meat to mindless fucks who wouldn't know a critical thought if it hit them. Most of his audience are high school educated retirees. What does that tell you?
Don't dodge again. Answer this, Dipshit: Does O'Reilly treat his guests with different POV as Smith treated him here?
Can't you just lay off the O'Reilly bashing for one video? He didn't do a damn thing wrong in this video for god sakes. You people never stop. "He's aggressive, he's mean, he's insensitive, he's this, he's that"
Christ just shut the fuck up about him - 6 million people watch him per night, more than any other cable news show, so you must be the one who's crazy.
Um NO we aren't going to shut up about him. He is a disengenuos loudmouth liar, and he always has been. This should be a time of moving forward but NO, it won't because all of the Fox Zombies that listen to Billo will do nothing but sit and spit and bitch instead of GETTING TO WORK on a solution and DOING THEIR PART and PAYING THEIR SHARE. That is the typical Repugnican - never be honest, always attack, always lie and attack those who tell the truth, and never do the responsible thing.
right on TheBronxBull9, the guy's is just doing what he paid to do to COMMENTATE on news.
okay fox news haters we get it just change the channel and shut up. hate it then dont watch it its as simple as that. theres many other news outlets out there so dont bitch about 1 being "too right wing".
Isn't karma a wonderful thing? The guy lies and spins through his teeth just about every night while laughing all the way to the bank (15 to 20mil per year), and his sheep can't see that. A corner street hooker has more integrity than the cowardly rightwing Bill O'Reilly.
By this do you mean how Smith asks a question and lets his guest, O'Reilly, answer the questions uninterrupted?
Yeah, maybe O'Reilly could learn a thing or two being interviewed by a real TRUE journalist such as Smith. Imagine if Smith had utilized the O'Reilly M.O. of cowardly interrupting, diverting, deflecting, or outright ignoring what a guest has to say in order to make himself or his partisanship look better? It would certainly make a complicated world a lot easier to take.
O'Reilly claims he is "fair and balanced", "dishes it out to both sides", and is "objective". Care to point out to us here how many times in, say, just the last month he has begun his show by attacking Right-wing blogs, Republican politicians, or critiqued the stimulus plan with pundits other than Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Neal Cavuto, or Glenn beck,et all?
When did O'Reilly ever concern himself about the debt via the war he supported?
O'Reilly is the consummate spinmeister, liar extraordinaire.
Jeezus, you're an idiot. Just because he has others (not as many as Conservatives, mind you) from the opposite side of the aisle does not make him objective. Yes, he has people like Hill and Colmes on, but look at how he frames the questions and positions himself when asking a Democrat or Liberal a question versus him asking a Republican or Neocon. Totally different.
He DOES NOT TELL his audience he is a Conservative. He cowardly hides under a "Traditionalist" label -- what's that?
Jeezus, you're an idiot. He tells the audience all the time: "I'm a Conservative guy, you know that", it's not a mystery. LMAO. The point is that he invites Liberals on for debate all the time, only some show up, they have an open invitation.
You obviously don't watch everyday like me, so you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I'm the idiot? You're the one who forms opinions based on ignorance and not having all of the facts.
You really are one big dumbshit. I'm conservative -- SOCIALLY conservative -- and I tell people that all the time, but everyone who knows me considers me a Liberal, very liberal. Can you see how that works, dunce?
O'Reilly does the same thing. He'll say he's a conservative guy, but he uses the lower case as I do. he doesn't come out and state he is a (upper case) Conservative, which he is.
I've watched O'Reilly for almost eight years for comedic relief, and there is no bigger fraud on the air.
"Loon"? You've learned well from your master. When the kitchen gets hot, you run.
O'Reilly knows that if he comes out and states he's a Conservative, which he is, his position that he is objective and independent goes out the window.
Tell me, if he is the journalist he claims to be, why isn't he on all the Sunday talk shows? Why aren't the opinions of tinhorns like O'Reilly or Limbaugh valued by those who really know and work in politics, or actually engage in civil, calm, rational debate?
So yes, he is objective, he hears all sides and uses common sense to make decisions.
Yes he does dish it out on both sides. I have to Listen to your Liberal non-sense all of the time on his program, and every other Fox program all day. They have Liberal pundits on for debate, every hour of every day. Which is why I know exactly what you lunatics believe.
On the other hand, you all speak out of ignorance about my beliefs because you never hear them on MS-SPin-BC
Look at your handle and I'm the ignorant one? Real bright. Death of those with Liberal leanings and I'm ignorant? Really? How many American service personal are buried in military cemetaries globally who were Liberals?About half?
Yeah, right,Fox picks the softest milquetoast centrist Democrats out there, attacks them,and you call them Liberal and being treated fairly?Do you even know what Liberal means? Look up its etymology, dunce.
You don't know much, which comports with those who watch Fox.
I do know what Liberal means, people who call themselves Liberal today have actually perverted the original ideology with their welfare promotion and high taxes/high spending, overbearing government.
And an overwhelming majority of service members are conservative, dunce, don't try to pretend. Either way the fact is irrelevant.
Man you're fucking dumb.
By the way my handle is meant to get under your Liberal skin fast, you soft sensitive little Liberal pussy.
You DON'T know what Liberal means. Most right-wing sheep don't. It was in the Reagan 80s when the Right hijacked the term because it threatened them. It was to their benefit to demonize a virtuous, noble term, but I wouldn't expect sheep like you to know that.
Officers lean Conservative, but those doing the fighting break down in the middle, Idiot. And you're the one who wants Liberals dead, so it is relevant.
The U.S. is one of the least taxed, least regulated, industrialized countries. Dunce.
We have one of the highest corporate taxes in the world.
And what Liberalism used to mean is also irrelevant, it's how it is defined today, so spare me with the old days, everybody knows what Liberalism stands for nowadays, it stands for weakening America.
If the fighters break down the middle that would make them Moderate, not Liberal, moron.
Wrong, dumbfuck. How does it feel to be a pawn for the rich, by the way?
Look at the corporate tax rates for this country from the '50s, and look at them today. Somehow those higher tax rates of the '50s didn't prevent the US from becoming an economic superpower. So why all the complaining today? And with tax loopholes, American corporations actually have one of the lowest tax rates of all the industrialized powers.
"Everybody knows"??? That's what O'Reilly uses on his sheep all the time. LOL!
One more thing, Stupidfuck: Infantry personnel break down politically like their civilians counterparts do. When I said that they broke down the middle, that meant that they broke down into equitable portions of Left and Right.
Speaking of the military, do you think the hypocritical O'reilly is grooming his daughter for service in the armed forces? He has cowardly berated concerned mothers several times who have fought recruiters on their campuses, particularly since he didn't serve himself.
O'Reilly is nothing more than a shameless, self-promoting rightwing huckster perfectly suited for Fox News; A multi-millionaire bigot who has made it to the "top" by tapping into the angst of the angry white male. He is neither a journalist, nor expert on human behavior. You'd have to be an idiot to buy any of his books. In an open setting with a moderator in place, he would get his ass kicked so fast by the many who have called him out that it would leave his head spinning.
ITA with everything you said about Bill O'rielly! It amazes me how the greedy Republicans or sooo concerned with how this stimulus package is going to be diveed out to the masses! Where was all this concern when all of those exective officials were running those BIG companies into the ground while bleeding them dry? Spare me! He just wants to make sure that the greedy, and self-absorbed people in this country stay rich, and the poor stay just as they are!
Yes, I too am left slack-jawed currently by all these Neocons suddenly discovering something known as the deficit and the debt. All of a sudden they are worried about the country's fiscal problems. They somehow overlooked or dismissed the cost of Bush's illegal unnecessary treasury busting war in Iraq, but let Obama spend it on their fellow citizens and they go thru the roof. What a bunch of hypocrites.
... They never say anything about the unprecedented debt Reagan left us with. Never.
You got it exactly right. Libs attack the messenger and avoid debating the facts all the time. They know their arguments don't hold water, so they just lobs insults at O'Reilly.
You're the one with problems if you are looking to the likes of Bill O'Reilly for your information. Do you really believe a highly partisan fraud is going to read a 600 page bill, much less give it to you straight? Do you really believe such complicated matters and policies can be reduced to three minute rants?
We Liberals attack O'Reilly because he is such a lying, ignorant fraud. How many lies has he been caught telling red handed?
Fox News has higher ratings than CBS??? Show me the data.
Why is he given air time?? Think about it idiot! He has more listeners than ABC and NBC combined. Everyone of his books are number #1. Why is that? Now before you think I am a O'Reilly lover! I am not. I think he is an arrogant bigheaded putz, but he tells it like it is most of the time. He is a reporter not a commentator like Hannity. Just take a moment and step outside you hatred for rightwing idiology and listen to the interview. He does not slam Obama! He is just telling it like it is.
He's a "reporter"? He violates just about every journalism tenet every time he opens his mouth. Have you ever taken a college level journalism course? He's a partisan fraud.
"I'm not an ideologue" ??? He's kidding, right? He's a rightwing hack following the Fox business model of pandering to the idiots of hate (Conservative) radio. If he's not an ideologue, then why does he go after anyone attacking Bush or his administration, and yet has never defended a Democrat or Liberal in the same way?
Hey! I'm not trying to make this guys bond here! I hate them all. I cannot stand journalist. To me they are all a bunch of doom and gloom searchers that report the worst of the worst. Product of their college environment I guess. I can say he has pounced on Republicans alike as well. The Lib's more so, but hey its like saying why are there more blacks in prison! Because they commit more crimes. Same goes for the Lib's! They do more stupid things than the Rep's.
So tell everyone here where you get your information from? So Libs do more stupid things? You can actually say that with a straight face given the worst president EVER (He was a Neocon) just left office and left the country deeper in debt and with its world standing ruined, etc.?
Here's a challenge for you: In the next week, month, year, document how many times O'Reilly leads off with attacks and complaints about the far-RIGHT, Conservative talk radio, or Republican/Conservative politicians.
OMG! I love the picture that they used of Nancy Pelosi!!! Any bill that is written by Nancy Pelosi is going to be full of pork. I like Obama, he is doing everything he can to fix the problem, Nancy Pelosi is dead weight.
Obama doing the bet he can would start with cutting government spending not increasing the debt by 1 trillion a day! We are going to be in a much worse position in 4 years if he continues to spend worse than Bush!
Yes, let's take the Republican position by cutting taxes and deregulating even more. Show us where in history this has worked. By the way, how many bridges can be built by cutting taxes?
The rich got richer during BOTH the Reagan and Dubya administrations, all while the middle class and poorer classes took the hit for it. Both administrations left this country with UNPRECEDENTED DEBT, with Reagan turning this country into a debtor nation in just eight years.
O'Reilly, as well as Fox News, promote these appearances with other networks. It's basically one hand washing the other. Before he appears on such shows, there are generally pre-written agreements in place that O'Reilly's sexual harassment suit, or other things such as his hypocrisy ( The "A Current Affair" blow up), will not be brought up.
Yes, can you believe that so many Americans buy this tinhorn's slop?! His show should be titled "The All Spin Zone". It is nothing but rightwing propaganda.
Unlike most of the Mainstream and Matt Drudge Media, Bill O'Reilly can handle the Larry Smiths and the Ann Coulters.
Nickidewbear 6 months ago
billo is a jackass
mindfuckerification 7 months ago
Hahaha, he cites a lawsuit filed by the far-right network in which he has a vested interest as an example of what a danger the stimulus package was... I don't find Fox news to be a credible source on anything other than right-winged progression-bashing capitalist-loving propaganda. Bill loves saying "social-engineering," it's a good fear phrase.
57sicko 9 months ago
Obama killed Osama BITCHES!!
MegaHayhayhayhay 9 months ago
"BILL O'RELLY SPINS STIMULUS PLAN" the title of the video on the OFFICIAL CBS youtube channel, I hope the libs can stop telling me that the mainstream media is not left wing!!
indians4bobbyjindal 1 year ago
Comment removed
indians4bobbyjindal 1 year ago
O'Reilly is tool. Anyone who buys his book should be put to sleep.
tml4873 1 year ago 3
@tml4873 Bill O'Reilly is very fair. @CBS needs to watch their own video.
Nickidewbear 6 months ago
Hey O'Relly didn't you claim that Iraq had WMDs.
You were wrong then and you are wrong now. Go back to having phone sex with your producer.
joeyconservative 1 year ago
People who think Elvis is still alive:7%
People who think the stimulus package actually created jobs:6%. Need I say more???
STPdemon 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Rosie was right. we need a real independent investigation into 911. Many witnesses reported explosions inside the buildings. 19 Muslims with boxcutters? Oh please give me a break. Also You Tube WTC 7 Collapse and it looks like a controlled demolition. You Tube WTC 7 Collapse now and judge for yourself.
GREG7289 2 years ago
franqueln the only buffoon is you, noone throws O'reilly a hard ball or else he'll hit it back at them 10 times as hard. He knows how to debate.
kuwageta 2 years ago 2
yeah if debating mean yelling shut up the loudest BillO wins hands down.
verstwo2 2 years ago
You are completely and totally mistaken in this assertion. My job is to evaluate arguments and decipher techniques and points in structured debates.
The tactics Bill uses are ad hominem attacks, yelling to make his point more assertive and using himself and other conservatives as fallacies referencing authorities.
Along with this he uses his old tactics that are classic tactics: quote mining, inventing facts, and belittling opponents who he deems weaker.
Bill O is a very poor debater.
HOLYdpsBATMAN 2 years ago
Harry Smith has to have neck surgery because of chronically looking down his nose at people. He's an elitist.
tmwtpbrent14 2 years ago
first time i see o`r speak normal...:-)
log140 2 years ago
You should watch his show more often. He rarely yells and when he does it's for good reason.
Last time he yelled at someone was at Barney Frank, because he lied in Bill's face. And that was over a year ago.
xleax 2 years ago
i don`t share his views.. i know he is smart and biased! I just see him as puppet of the "divide and conquer" show.. witch makes the right fight against the left, while the elite is ruling untouched!!
his arguments are into bringing up the difference between conservatives and liberals, not into bringing up the difference between right and wrong..
log140 2 years ago
Right and wrong is what his show is all about.
I favorited an Oprah show when O'Reilly was on. He explains himself very well on her show.
xleax 2 years ago
the "best" about O`R is when the man is denouncing pacifists for lack of "patriotism" and as being a "danger" to this country... and expects you to support the (neverending) war in afghanistan & Iraq, without sending his children to war...
the man saying the WMD in Iraq is no lie, because the president didn`t know.. :-)
disorting the Geneva Convention and calling waterboarding no torture after we executed ppl who did it to our soldiers..
log140 2 years ago
You're from Germany so you should know the dangers of pacifism. I'll refresh your memory:
Neville Chamberlain, a British Prime minister signed a peace contract with Hitler and declared the "Peace of our time" when he returned to England. The next day Hitler started WW2; he had no intention of keeping the agreement.
Al-Qaida, like Hitler, has no interest in peace. They prove that over and over.
Pacifists are like Neville Chamberlain: very naive do-gooders.
xleax 2 years ago
I know about the danger of going to war also.. the term "preventive war" was Hitlers invention... "denouncing pacifists" Hermann Görings...
where do we stand now on a scale between N. Chamberlain and Hitler/Göring??
was any of the 911 terrorists citizen of Iraq or Afghanistan? No..
.. since when you fight against a terrorist org. with classic warfare, invading 2 countries?
log140 2 years ago
Afghanistan was basically controlled by Taliban and it was big training ground for terrorists. So they took'em out.
Saddam was non-compliant with the weapon inspectors and had 17 violations of UN cease-fire agreement. So that was reason alone to attack.
The far-left is pretty much in a modern day Chamberlain mentality.
xleax 2 years ago
you wrt: "The far-left is pretty much in a modern day Chamberlain mentality."
this is what i ment with the "divide and conquer" show:-)
The other European countries were "harbouring enemies" (jews), so the nazis "took'em out." (notice the parallel)
... OBL was sponsored by the CIA to fight the russians.. Saddam was sponsored to fight against Iran and the kurdish population.. now we are supposed to believe they are "bad, real enemies" like Adolf Hitler:-)
not just the "boogie man"
log140 2 years ago
Excuse me, but this is not a practice in moral relativism. You're basically equating Hitler's position against Jews with Bush & Obama positions against Al-Qaida.
The Al-Qaida that intentionally kills Afhgans and Iraqis.
I can't help find you your moral compass - that's on you.
Funny how a country that had the most evil man in the 20th century brainwash them, now 60 years laters stands idly by against evil once again. Things haven't changed that much, have they? Sad.
xleax 2 years ago
I`m not representing my country here (you either).
90% of our population is against these wars, we have ISAF-Troops in Afghanistan!
the parallels are:
enableing act= patriot act
reichstag-fire = 911
Göring/propaganda = cheney/Fox Noise
don`t question= follow
NWO = NWO
Things changed.. we didn`t know about Geneva Convention 70 years ago the USA thought us what it ment.. now we had a bush saying it is "vague" and Fox starting a brainwash campaign on waterboarding and how it "keeps America safe"
log140 2 years ago
Al-Qaida has no respect for the Geneva Convention; They kill civilians, intentionally, and dress as civilians.
In 9/11 attacks they killed more people than the Japanese did on Pearl Harbor. And they almost succeeded in hitting the White House. It was, de facto, a declaration of war, that Osama Bin Laden declared on America back in 1998.
You're confusing defense against evil with evil itself. Waterboarding helped capture more terrorists.
Patriot act prevented further attacks.
xleax 2 years ago
500 words not enough to answer on the issues you cut here.. I`m not confusing anything!
GC was respected during ww2 and the "cold war", when you could say there were real tough enemies to fight against.. now against couple of hundred alqueda: waterboarding "kept america safe":-)
Lowering your standards to Alqueda`s moral values, or using it as excuse... sad!
the iraq and afghan war lasted longer than ww2, ever thought about not being there for OBL (Tim Osman) the "boogie excuse-man"...
log140 2 years ago
Waterboarding was used only on 3 people and hasn't been used since 2004.
While it is true that these terrorist organizations don't have millions of members, you have to keep in mind that it's ideology is spread with violence, fear, and a perversion of Islam.
If they get to control a country like Afghanistan or Iraq they would also acquire oil and with that money. Then it will be only a matter of time before they develop nukes, or smuggle a nuclear war head through Mexico and set it off.
xleax 2 years ago
fox news used to say it was used on 3 ppl, but this is very far from the truth... remember abu graib? not to say about the number of suspects who died in us-custody.. than there is a national security directive that doesn`t allow the public exposure of pics that have been made on different torture occasions (though i agree that not all might have been about waterboarding)..
I agree there is a islamic-extremist threat, though i don`t see "going to war" as a weapon against a terrorist-ideology!
log140 2 years ago
sure you have a very strong anti-terrorist military "delta force" trained to fight terrorists .. going to war against 2 countries sounds like occupying italy and austria because of the mafia from sicily,
after doing business with these "bad guys"
log140 2 years ago
Abu Ghraib was not the policy of the USA. The soldiers who did that, did that of their own choice and were punished accordingly.
What do you propose we do with Islamic extremists? Talk to them, like Neville tried with Hitler?
You're mixing things; the Sicilian mafia is not a worldwide terrorist problem, it is an Italian criminal problem.
xleax 2 years ago
i heard about the "few bad apples" excuse.. not nice when you ask your men to follow orders and than leave them alone, when the whole thing turns sour.. your leadership failed you!
wasn`t suggesting peace talks with OBL, was rather suggesting the tactics is wrong (delta force was trained to fight these terrorists) and i was comparing the Iraq-Afghanistan invasion tactic-logic with invading Italy because of the mafia;. just like you compared alqueda to hitler, you can agree with it or not..
log140 2 years ago
but sure would be interresting to know how deep the bush-binladen connection goes? why the binladen family was allowed to leave the usa during the "no fly" days, what they (52) were doing there in the first place... if bush was ever financed by saudis or binladen..why he is not on the FBI most wanted list for 911? who messed up at tora-bora? exactly how many american soldiers/marines were sent after binladen in the beginning of this war?!
log140 2 years ago
The Sicialian mafia is not controling Italy's politics, nither does it participiate in blowing up citizens or forcing people to believe it's ideology, something that would happen if US left Iraq and Al-Qaida got to reign there.
As a policy with dealing with evil, that wants to take over the world, Hitler's Nazis and Al-Qaida are pretty much the same.
By my correspondence with you I see you're very fond of conspiracy theories.
You have no arguments - or facts - only conspiracy questions.
xleax 2 years ago
lets see what fact i have..
1. according to the FBI's Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb, "The FBI has NO hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11." and he is NOT on the FBI most wanted list: For 911
2. Bush`s company "Arbusto" got money from the Binladens.
3. OBL was supported during the russian occupation of afghanistan.
4. 52 Binladens were living in the USA and escorted out without interrogation on the 13-14.11.01
5. USA spend more than the next 19 nations combined on military
log140 2 years ago
6. acc. to Vincent Bugliosi no american soldiers was sent after OBL at Tora Bora.
7. these wars lasted longer than ww2..
if there something we learned from ww2 it is: to question authority! Never ever again follow blindly some leader... anyone!!
i think Jefferson or Adams said something similar! sure this doesn`t go well with being in the army, were you have to follow without questioning anything...
you could have used the word "conspiracy", if i wrote you are at war for oil!!
log140 2 years ago
anyway... Happy New Year!!! :-))
log140 2 years ago
I have little time for conspiracy theories.
We're dealing with radical 'muslims' who are also killing other fellow Muslims (Iraqis, Afghans, Turks..). So it's not just against the "immoral west" it's against fellow Muslims as well.
All in the name of 'Allah the merciful'...
And, I'm afraid we've only seen the beginning of this. A small precentege of Muslims in Europe and United States are being radicalized as we speak.
But anyway, Merry Christmas! :)
xleax 2 years ago
calling facts "conspiracy theories" ... are you running out of arguments:-)
there is a muslim extremist threat no doubt...
but jumping from a terrorist attack to invading 2 countries:-) there is no excuse for that , not to mention that it is against UN-Charta as well...
sure, "exporting democracy" sounds great, but setting moral western standards in Iraq-Afghanistan won`t work, you don`t have to be a professor to know that...
log140 2 years ago
This is not a war against those two countries you pinhead. If the terrorist wouldn't be attacking civilians, as they do, intentionally, there would be no need for them to still be there.
You don't need to be a rocket scientists to figure that out.
And btw, your brilliant UN officials were getting paid by Hussein in the 'food for oil' program a while back to keep quiet and support him.
xleax 2 years ago
now you are starting to sound like billo the clown:-)
you are not at war, you are only there to bring peace and democracy with your guns:-)
extremists don`t accept your democracy and now you are there forever..
Why don't you realize that without your principles, you are no better (in fact much worse) than some 3rd world dictatorship?
The terrorist won, because you've forgotten what you stand for.
i was taking about UN-Charta..
log140 2 years ago
lets see... there was a terrorist group (alqueda) who attacked the US... so you went to afghanistan to get them, but they left that country and your president thought, while you are there, lets bring them democracy, they will love us for that.. but the ppl living there didn`t like foreigners invading their country for whatever reason, so they (taliban) decided to fight the ppl who wanted to bring them western democracy... does it get any better??? sent more troops, bring them more democracy!!
log140 2 years ago
You left out that Afghanistan in 2001 was a country controlled by terrorist and the had the biggest terrorist training grounds in the middle east, which the US destroyed.
xleax 2 years ago
The Taliban was in charge and basicly it was the same ppl the US helped to kick russian ass.. it was the legitimate ruler of that country and had nothing "directly" to do with binladen/alqueda..
by calling everyone a "terrorist" creates only more confusion..
depends on your prospective, but they call themselves "freedom fighters" and they claim they are fighting against foreign occupation troops...
log140 2 years ago
I guess you have no beef with people who stone women, who aren't in their proper attire (fully clothed) to death?
I guess you have no beef with people who kill a a civilian by chopping his head off and filming it?
That's what US and NATO troops are protecting people against.
How does a freedom fighter kill his own people, intentionally? He doesn't.
Only useful idiots like Chomsky believe words of evil man, instead of looking at their actions.
xleax 2 years ago
"have no beef" sounds like a nice expression:-)
anyway.. whatever these extremists do, it`s their "sharia-law" and as long as they do it between themselves it`s their f. problem...
you don`t have to risk your lives for them.. i know ppl like you have the best intentions, but it`s not going to lead to a good result... this "protection" of civilians often leads to casualties...
alqueda is gone and afghanistan is "taliban-land"... there is no way you can bring them democracy.. leave now!!
log140 2 years ago
i don`t care what chomsky said.. there is no future for this occupation (war)... you can call it "mission impossible".. it`s not worth it... and it doesn`t matter if you are democrat or republican to realize that!! over 8 years and no end at the horizon... the paparazzi who was made president doesn`t care for his ppl.
it`s like playing in a casino.. the earlier you leave the better for you, you will loose less...
log140 2 years ago
It's not just Sharia Law, that is the opposite of just about every human right, that is the problem here.
The reason I mention Chomsky is because your position is about the same. "Get out of there." Without regard of the concurrences, which would be: Gencoide, taking over of oil supplies (money) by terrorist, bribing of nuclear scientists with that money, acquiring various bombs, uninterrupted terrorist training..
A lot more people would be dying, if we let that happen. Get me?
xleax 2 years ago
i don`t need chomsky to have my own view... your gov. sustained these ppl and lots of dictators around the world including saddam! now your gov. doesn`t like these ppl anymore and sends you to "correct" the situation! when genocide was going on in africa, us-presidents were looking the other way: this sounds like double-standard to me!
does oil have to do with it?!
back in the time of other empires, they claimed to bring civilisation to the occupied territories..
log140 2 years ago
The same old liberal line. You oppose the liberation of Iraqis from a brutal dictator, then you ask "Why don't you help people in Africa?"
I'll tell you why. Africans are a danger only to themselfs. Jihadists are a danger to the whole world.
xleax 2 years ago
Yeah, but where was the United Nations in all of this? The USA needs a Commander-In-Chief, not a Community Organizer in Chief...
STPdemon 2 years ago
hi.. have to ask, what you mean by "...this".
it was a longer conversation and i am not quite sure what you refer to?
regards
log140 2 years ago
we... and this includes my country as well, let 24.000 ppl die every day of hunger! sharia-law as well as other barbaric punishments were common in the arab world for decades! saudi arabia and kuwait does it as well.. but we protected them from saddam, without ever asking them to stop these methods... this is what i mean with double standard and moral position to play "big brother" on this planet.. yes you are right this should stop, no doubt.. but why not start with the saudis..
log140 2 years ago
Saudi government does not pose a threat to worldwide peace.
If you want to end poverty, start by donating your own money to charity. But, as you may well know, a lot of that money will be stolen by African thugs.
The problem is not that the world doesn't help Africa.. they help them a plenty! But man, some of those folks become depended on that help...
People have to help themselfs.
The problem is not that the world is not helping, they do, it's their mentality.
xleax 2 years ago
you say it: "People have to help themselfs" .. why doesn`t it count for iraqis and afghans as well..
sure you named one of the major problems with ending hunger.. but we are not willing to interfear and eliminate those thugs who steal from our help.. this makes iraq-afghanistan a double standard policy!
we had a chance to influence the saudis and kuweitis after we helped them, sure they are no threat for world peace, but they would have listened..
log140 2 years ago
The US went in to Afghanistan and Iraq because of the War on terror, not just for the Iraqis and Afghans, but for people all around the world.
Therefore, saving the world from evil is a lot higher priority (more people at stake) than the noble, but idealistic wish of eliminating poverty.
And again, private citizens and governments donate a lot of money and food without much progress.
Also the US Presidents give an oath that they will protect their country - and that's what they're doing
xleax 2 years ago
as i said before, i believe you are a honest person who believes he is doing the right thing and we can agree or disagree, if what you are doing is the right thing..
but i don`t trust your govt. not bush and not obama..
they are politicians, they would do or say anything to reach their goals, they would misuse you and sacrifice you for their agenda..
i will share with you some vids these days, if you don`t mind and if you are allowed..
log140 2 years ago
Alright
xleax 2 years ago
Yeah, but most of the actual materminds and $ that was behind 9-11 was Saudi.
Plus those a-holes built a 3,000 ft building in Dubai that cost billions of dollars, yet sent $0 to Haiti...
STPdemon 2 years ago
Chompsky, Alinsky, Trotsky = Fullashitsky.
STPdemon 2 years ago
FranqueInSoCal <---------------still has Obama signs on his lawn.
Your alleged president makes Jimmy Carter look like Reagan. The 2010 Mid-Terms are going to be an absolute bloodbath for you limp leftist.
OriginalRocketJock 3 years ago
ORJ:
Is this the very same Obama many of your ilk couldn't see as ever becoming president? The same Obama that hit your sorry asses like a freight train and dumbfounded for answers?
Reagan? The cowboy that made clowns like you "feel good", all the while taking this country from a creditor nation to a debtor nation in just eight years? The clown who left homelessness and unprecedented debt as his legacy? That Reagan? Care to name one -- ONE -- policy that Reagan left to better this country?
Ass.
FranqueInSoCal 3 years ago 2
Fact is Obama has signed a stimulus (future debt) bigger than an other president including W. You can't spend your way out of debt, regardless how we got here. He is supposed to "change" our government but he is just really carrying on what Bush was doing. More spending, more nation building and more government.
malibuhur12 3 years ago
I guess I missed it, but what stimulus package did either "W' or Reagan sign into law? I mean, there must be something to show for the unprecedented debt they BOTH straddled future generations with. Suddenly people like you are worried about debt, but convenient give Repugs a pass?
And don't put words in Obama's mouth. What Obama generally meant by change during his campaign is not following the same downward spiral idiots like Reagan and "W" put us in -- their priorities and philosophies iow.
FranqueInSoCal 3 years ago
You missed the last 2 stimulus spending packages that Bush signed into law last year? I dont know why i'm even talking with you about this. It's clear you've been fooled to think that Obama is different than Bush
malibuhur12 3 years ago
And if tax cuts and an overbearing government (regulations) are what really kill business and stifle entrepreneurship, which is what I believe you are implying and are for, why didn't "W" or Reagan's methods work? Care to show me how a tax cut for the wealthy builds a bridge, or restores a program for the needy?If you despise government so much, why don't you move? This is one of the least regulated industrialized countries anywhere. Would you turn to Rush or Billo for aid after a hurricane?
FranqueInSoCal 3 years ago
We need to cut taxes, but only if we are going to cut government spending. We spend a trillion dollars a year blowing up bridges in Iraq then rebuilding them. I would rather that money not support our empire abroad and be used here in America.
malibuhur12 3 years ago
O'Reilly has chunks of Olbermann, Maddow and that joke of a morning show on CBS in his stool. O'Reilly's artings consistantly top all these clown shows combined.
You leftist political morons only wish you had ratings on PMSNBC
OriginalRocketJock 3 years ago
ORJ:
Limbaugh supposedly has great ratings and a large audience too, but what did his daily ranting mean to the Republican party in this past election -- on any front? You losers, who claimed Obama didn't stand a chance, are suddenly finding yourselves for something to believe in, such as a pill poppin', overweight, divisive buffoon, like Limbaugh, or the cowardly tinhorn O'Reilly, who will only appear on shows that lob him softballs, and also won't ask him on his sexual harrassment suit.
LOL!
FranqueInSoCal 3 years ago
I think we should have an election. This election would be to KICK Pelosi out of Washington. Do I hear a second to that?
GeekGirl2u 3 years ago 10
Kick Oblabla out too!
Angie2343 3 years ago 3
@GeekGirl2u kick all the democrats and liberals out!
jenn1ifer 1 year ago
Saying Uhbama didnt vet Daschle,why would he have? Same as Uhbama wasnt vetted,thats pretty obvious.
onecelticwarrior 3 years ago 2
You want to see the folks be ok, O'Reilly?! Do me a favor and youtube search Ron Paul. He will tell you how to fix things, and what not to do which starts with spending 800 billion on a stupid "Stimulus" package that will only put us into more debt.
malibuhur12 3 years ago 2
I'll second that. But one thing I cannot figure is why so few of us see Dr. Paul's wisdom & common sense? Dare I use the word "common," if less than 1% of the country sees it the same way?
mrbhave 3 years ago 2
Because Paul's "wisdom and common sense" is non-existent for the most part. No politician or person has a magic wand to magically fix things like they present them. He hit a nerve with many Americans -- both Left and Right -- with his observations and views on an unpopular costly war, but even a broken watch is right twice a day. He wouldn't be electable on the majority of his views.
FranqueInSoCal 3 years ago
Nobody said Ron Paul had a magic wand, but the "nerve" you claim that he struck is very much a magic wand of influence.
He has a lot more to say about a lot more than just the war. You should read/watch more of him.
It's tragic that you say he's not electable. He's too smart for most of the sheep to understand him. George Bush got elected twice -- why? Because half of the country has a below average IQ, just like him. That explains why people related to (and voted for) Bush.
mrbhave 3 years ago
Mal:
The only thing Ron Paul was right about, was the illegal, immoral, unprovoked, treasury busting Iraq war; he has Looney tune views on just about everything else. His war stance was the reason for his popularity. He hit a nerve, even with Republicans. He wouldn't be electable on most of his other positions.
Reagan left this country unprecedented debt, compounded by the idiot Dubya. Care to provide me of an example of REAL fiscal conservatism? Was the debt an issue when "W" took us to war?
FranqueInSoCal 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
REAL RepubliCON STIMULUS:
~ CRAIG: A return foot-tapping under mens room stalls
~ LIMBAUGH: Blanket-free prescriptions for Oxy-Contin
~ W & SCARAH FAILIN: Each want 50% of Scare-Crows Brain
~ COULTER: Get Adams Apple Removed
~ CHENEY: Keep Unilateral Contracts & Face Shootings Legal
~ NITT-WITT-MITT ROMNEY: Continue flip-flopping
~ FOLEY: Return e-mails from teen boys
~ HAGGARD: A male hooker who won't kiss & tell about Sex & Meth
GOAL: Continue to LOSE "DOZENS" of Senate & House Seats!
mavrek47 3 years ago
There wasn't any "spin" in this video. The idiot who put that title on the video did.
Hellcasters 3 years ago 4
What did O'Reilly lie about?
TheBronxBull9 3 years ago
"Excert..."
Too funnyHarry Smith is a moron
rprossner 3 years ago
"Who watches OReilly? According to Pew Research Center, his viewers are the most knowledgeable on the air..."
Lawrence Solomon, Canadian National Post, January 10, 2009.
TheBronxBull9 3 years ago
LOL!
Solomon writes for Conservative rags, and he is also one who is skeptical of global warming, etc. Should anyone be shocked that one neocon would support another?
The most coveted demographic(s) that network shows seek are the 18-49, and the 25-54 age groups. These are the biggest spenders according to their studies. O'Reilly has neither of these. His largest demographic is the 45-64 demo. It seems that the younger cohorts see through his BS.
One study had Fox viewers as the most ignorant.
Andrea4me 3 years ago
You can go stright to the Nielsen website and see the ratings for yourself.
Oreilly rapes everyone in his timeslot
LibtardsKillYourself 3 years ago
Tell me, who does your thinking when O'Reilly is off the air? Which Conservative talk radio host takes over?
Yes, go to the Nielsen ratings guide and tell me that O'reilly draws in more viewers than any -- ANY -- of the big three networks during the prime time evening newcasts. Why was it that Americans OVERWHELMINGLY turned to the Big Three networks for their news and coverage of 9/11?
Ha-ha. Another idiot who looks to a fraud for his information. No wonder most of his viewers are so ignorant.
FranqueInSoCal 3 years ago
Popularity does not make one right. Some of the most odious, hateful, vile people that ever existed had a large following. What makes O'Reilly popular is that he has taken talk radio to the screen. He throws out red meat to mindless fucks who wouldn't know a critical thought if it hit them. Most of his audience are high school educated retirees. What does that tell you?
Don't dodge again. Answer this, Dipshit: Does O'Reilly treat his guests with different POV as Smith treated him here?
A: No
PalaniRides 3 years ago
Can't you just lay off the O'Reilly bashing for one video? He didn't do a damn thing wrong in this video for god sakes. You people never stop. "He's aggressive, he's mean, he's insensitive, he's this, he's that"
Christ just shut the fuck up about him - 6 million people watch him per night, more than any other cable news show, so you must be the one who's crazy.
TheBronxBull9 3 years ago
Um NO we aren't going to shut up about him. He is a disengenuos loudmouth liar, and he always has been. This should be a time of moving forward but NO, it won't because all of the Fox Zombies that listen to Billo will do nothing but sit and spit and bitch instead of GETTING TO WORK on a solution and DOING THEIR PART and PAYING THEIR SHARE. That is the typical Repugnican - never be honest, always attack, always lie and attack those who tell the truth, and never do the responsible thing.
MisterETarot 3 years ago
Does paying my share mean carrying those who don't work?
TheBronxBull9 3 years ago
HHHHMMMM. YOu mean scum bags on WALL Street don't work?
InFromTheVoid 3 years ago
right on TheBronxBull9, the guy's is just doing what he paid to do to COMMENTATE on news.
okay fox news haters we get it just change the channel and shut up. hate it then dont watch it its as simple as that. theres many other news outlets out there so dont bitch about 1 being "too right wing".
ECWpaulBest69XD 3 years ago
Isn't karma a wonderful thing? The guy lies and spins through his teeth just about every night while laughing all the way to the bank (15 to 20mil per year), and his sheep can't see that. A corner street hooker has more integrity than the cowardly rightwing Bill O'Reilly.
PalaniRides 3 years ago
This interview reminded me of the good ol' days where the media used to be fair.
TheBronxBull9 3 years ago
By this do you mean how Smith asks a question and lets his guest, O'Reilly, answer the questions uninterrupted?
Yeah, maybe O'Reilly could learn a thing or two being interviewed by a real TRUE journalist such as Smith. Imagine if Smith had utilized the O'Reilly M.O. of cowardly interrupting, diverting, deflecting, or outright ignoring what a guest has to say in order to make himself or his partisanship look better? It would certainly make a complicated world a lot easier to take.
PalaniRides 3 years ago
Oh you poor thing, it's not okay for you to hate everyone and attack them any more is it?
MisterETarot 3 years ago
I'll ask the question again, since you dodged it the first time, What did O'Reilly lie about?
TheBronxBull9 3 years ago 4
O'Reilly claims he is "fair and balanced", "dishes it out to both sides", and is "objective". Care to point out to us here how many times in, say, just the last month he has begun his show by attacking Right-wing blogs, Republican politicians, or critiqued the stimulus plan with pundits other than Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Neal Cavuto, or Glenn beck,et all?
When did O'Reilly ever concern himself about the debt via the war he supported?
O'Reilly is the consummate spinmeister, liar extraordinaire.
FranqueInSoCal 3 years ago
He's critiqued the stimulus plan with Marc Lamont Hill, Alan Colmes and others.
He brings liberal pundits on his program for debate almost everyday.
Of course, he himself is a Conservative, and he tells the viewers that all of the time, he doesn't try to hide it.
But he presents all sides of the issues either himself ot through Liberal pundits, and then he lets the viewer decide.
He has criticized Bush's handling of the wars, Fannie and Freddie, etc., and other Republicans many times
LibtardsKillYourself 3 years ago
Jeezus, you're an idiot. Just because he has others (not as many as Conservatives, mind you) from the opposite side of the aisle does not make him objective. Yes, he has people like Hill and Colmes on, but look at how he frames the questions and positions himself when asking a Democrat or Liberal a question versus him asking a Republican or Neocon. Totally different.
He DOES NOT TELL his audience he is a Conservative. He cowardly hides under a "Traditionalist" label -- what's that?
FranqueInSoCal 3 years ago
Jeezus, you're an idiot. He tells the audience all the time: "I'm a Conservative guy, you know that", it's not a mystery. LMAO. The point is that he invites Liberals on for debate all the time, only some show up, they have an open invitation.
You obviously don't watch everyday like me, so you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I'm the idiot? You're the one who forms opinions based on ignorance and not having all of the facts.
LibtardsKillYourself 3 years ago
You really are one big dumbshit. I'm conservative -- SOCIALLY conservative -- and I tell people that all the time, but everyone who knows me considers me a Liberal, very liberal. Can you see how that works, dunce?
O'Reilly does the same thing. He'll say he's a conservative guy, but he uses the lower case as I do. he doesn't come out and state he is a (upper case) Conservative, which he is.
I've watched O'Reilly for almost eight years for comedic relief, and there is no bigger fraud on the air.
FranqueInSoCal 3 years ago
whatever, you make no sense and you sound like a loon
LibtardsKillYourself 3 years ago
"Loon"? You've learned well from your master. When the kitchen gets hot, you run.
O'Reilly knows that if he comes out and states he's a Conservative, which he is, his position that he is objective and independent goes out the window.
Tell me, if he is the journalist he claims to be, why isn't he on all the Sunday talk shows? Why aren't the opinions of tinhorns like O'Reilly or Limbaugh valued by those who really know and work in politics, or actually engage in civil, calm, rational debate?
FranqueInSoCal 3 years ago
So yes, he is objective, he hears all sides and uses common sense to make decisions.
Yes he does dish it out on both sides. I have to Listen to your Liberal non-sense all of the time on his program, and every other Fox program all day. They have Liberal pundits on for debate, every hour of every day. Which is why I know exactly what you lunatics believe.
On the other hand, you all speak out of ignorance about my beliefs because you never hear them on MS-SPin-BC
LibtardsKillYourself 3 years ago
Look at your handle and I'm the ignorant one? Real bright. Death of those with Liberal leanings and I'm ignorant? Really? How many American service personal are buried in military cemetaries globally who were Liberals?About half?
Yeah, right,Fox picks the softest milquetoast centrist Democrats out there, attacks them,and you call them Liberal and being treated fairly?Do you even know what Liberal means? Look up its etymology, dunce.
You don't know much, which comports with those who watch Fox.
FranqueInSoCal 3 years ago
I do know what Liberal means, people who call themselves Liberal today have actually perverted the original ideology with their welfare promotion and high taxes/high spending, overbearing government.
And an overwhelming majority of service members are conservative, dunce, don't try to pretend. Either way the fact is irrelevant.
Man you're fucking dumb.
By the way my handle is meant to get under your Liberal skin fast, you soft sensitive little Liberal pussy.
LibtardsKillYourself 3 years ago
You DON'T know what Liberal means. Most right-wing sheep don't. It was in the Reagan 80s when the Right hijacked the term because it threatened them. It was to their benefit to demonize a virtuous, noble term, but I wouldn't expect sheep like you to know that.
Officers lean Conservative, but those doing the fighting break down in the middle, Idiot. And you're the one who wants Liberals dead, so it is relevant.
The U.S. is one of the least taxed, least regulated, industrialized countries. Dunce.
FranqueInSoCal 3 years ago
Wrong.
We have one of the highest corporate taxes in the world.
And what Liberalism used to mean is also irrelevant, it's how it is defined today, so spare me with the old days, everybody knows what Liberalism stands for nowadays, it stands for weakening America.
If the fighters break down the middle that would make them Moderate, not Liberal, moron.
LibtardsKillYourself 3 years ago
Wrong, dumbfuck. How does it feel to be a pawn for the rich, by the way?
Look at the corporate tax rates for this country from the '50s, and look at them today. Somehow those higher tax rates of the '50s didn't prevent the US from becoming an economic superpower. So why all the complaining today? And with tax loopholes, American corporations actually have one of the lowest tax rates of all the industrialized powers.
"Everybody knows"??? That's what O'Reilly uses on his sheep all the time. LOL!
FranqueInSoCal 3 years ago
One more thing, Stupidfuck: Infantry personnel break down politically like their civilians counterparts do. When I said that they broke down the middle, that meant that they broke down into equitable portions of Left and Right.
Speaking of the military, do you think the hypocritical O'reilly is grooming his daughter for service in the armed forces? He has cowardly berated concerned mothers several times who have fought recruiters on their campuses, particularly since he didn't serve himself.
FranqueInSoCal 3 years ago
O Reilly is no messenger this is all a big schtick for him. Why dosen't he run for something.
OhSmeg 3 years ago
O'Reilly is nothing more than a shameless, self-promoting rightwing huckster perfectly suited for Fox News; A multi-millionaire bigot who has made it to the "top" by tapping into the angst of the angry white male. He is neither a journalist, nor expert on human behavior. You'd have to be an idiot to buy any of his books. In an open setting with a moderator in place, he would get his ass kicked so fast by the many who have called him out that it would leave his head spinning.
Fair and balanced?
PalaniRides 3 years ago
ITA with everything you said about Bill O'rielly! It amazes me how the greedy Republicans or sooo concerned with how this stimulus package is going to be diveed out to the masses! Where was all this concern when all of those exective officials were running those BIG companies into the ground while bleeding them dry? Spare me! He just wants to make sure that the greedy, and self-absorbed people in this country stay rich, and the poor stay just as they are!
AiniNashwa23 3 years ago
you're dumb
LibtardsKillYourself 3 years ago
Am I really??? This coming from an incestuous retard such as your self! Get a life loser
AiniNashwa23 3 years ago
Aini:
Yes, I too am left slack-jawed currently by all these Neocons suddenly discovering something known as the deficit and the debt. All of a sudden they are worried about the country's fiscal problems. They somehow overlooked or dismissed the cost of Bush's illegal unnecessary treasury busting war in Iraq, but let Obama spend it on their fellow citizens and they go thru the roof. What a bunch of hypocrites.
... They never say anything about the unprecedented debt Reagan left us with. Never.
FranqueInSoCal 3 years ago
Excellent. I enjoy reading the non-comments more than the interview.
Instead of commenting on the content of the interview, liberals and Fox news hater/bots attack the messenger and ignore the message.
I'll tell you why CBS had O'Reilly on... RATINGS!
CBS's rating suck. O'Reilly and Fox news's ratings are still on the rise.
CBS needs more viewers... got will get them with interviews like this. Well done CBS.
As to the interview: Well said O'Reilly. Couldn't agree more!
dbigboy161 3 years ago
You got it exactly right. Libs attack the messenger and avoid debating the facts all the time. They know their arguments don't hold water, so they just lobs insults at O'Reilly.
Raymond1967 3 years ago
Damn liberals
Tan3l6 3 years ago
You're the one with problems if you are looking to the likes of Bill O'Reilly for your information. Do you really believe a highly partisan fraud is going to read a 600 page bill, much less give it to you straight? Do you really believe such complicated matters and policies can be reduced to three minute rants?
We Liberals attack O'Reilly because he is such a lying, ignorant fraud. How many lies has he been caught telling red handed?
Fox News has higher ratings than CBS??? Show me the data.
PalaniRides 3 years ago
Why is he given air time?? Think about it idiot! He has more listeners than ABC and NBC combined. Everyone of his books are number #1. Why is that? Now before you think I am a O'Reilly lover! I am not. I think he is an arrogant bigheaded putz, but he tells it like it is most of the time. He is a reporter not a commentator like Hannity. Just take a moment and step outside you hatred for rightwing idiology and listen to the interview. He does not slam Obama! He is just telling it like it is.
boxeranders 3 years ago 4
He's a "reporter"? He violates just about every journalism tenet every time he opens his mouth. Have you ever taken a college level journalism course? He's a partisan fraud.
"I'm not an ideologue" ??? He's kidding, right? He's a rightwing hack following the Fox business model of pandering to the idiots of hate (Conservative) radio. If he's not an ideologue, then why does he go after anyone attacking Bush or his administration, and yet has never defended a Democrat or Liberal in the same way?
PalaniRides 3 years ago
Hey! I'm not trying to make this guys bond here! I hate them all. I cannot stand journalist. To me they are all a bunch of doom and gloom searchers that report the worst of the worst. Product of their college environment I guess. I can say he has pounced on Republicans alike as well. The Lib's more so, but hey its like saying why are there more blacks in prison! Because they commit more crimes. Same goes for the Lib's! They do more stupid things than the Rep's.
boxeranders 3 years ago
So tell everyone here where you get your information from? So Libs do more stupid things? You can actually say that with a straight face given the worst president EVER (He was a Neocon) just left office and left the country deeper in debt and with its world standing ruined, etc.?
Here's a challenge for you: In the next week, month, year, document how many times O'Reilly leads off with attacks and complaints about the far-RIGHT, Conservative talk radio, or Republican/Conservative politicians.
PalaniRides 3 years ago
OMG! I love the picture that they used of Nancy Pelosi!!! Any bill that is written by Nancy Pelosi is going to be full of pork. I like Obama, he is doing everything he can to fix the problem, Nancy Pelosi is dead weight.
SkylineTime 3 years ago
Obama doing the bet he can would start with cutting government spending not increasing the debt by 1 trillion a day! We are going to be in a much worse position in 4 years if he continues to spend worse than Bush!
malibuhur12 3 years ago 8
Mal:
Yes, let's take the Republican position by cutting taxes and deregulating even more. Show us where in history this has worked. By the way, how many bridges can be built by cutting taxes?
The rich got richer during BOTH the Reagan and Dubya administrations, all while the middle class and poorer classes took the hit for it. Both administrations left this country with UNPRECEDENTED DEBT, with Reagan turning this country into a debtor nation in just eight years.
Were you critical of them?
FranqueInSoCal 3 years ago
O'Reilly = LOSER.
Why is an intellectual lightweight loser like O'Reilly given air time? This is the shame of America.
chevychase 3 years ago
O'Reilly, as well as Fox News, promote these appearances with other networks. It's basically one hand washing the other. Before he appears on such shows, there are generally pre-written agreements in place that O'Reilly's sexual harassment suit, or other things such as his hypocrisy ( The "A Current Affair" blow up), will not be brought up.
Yes, can you believe that so many Americans buy this tinhorn's slop?! His show should be titled "The All Spin Zone". It is nothing but rightwing propaganda.
PalaniRides 3 years ago
Fuck that piece of shit
russtteee 3 years ago 2