O'Reilly vs Letterman

Hobbes

I have to say Letterman just doesn't hold back. Jon Stewart is a lot more diplomatic. Watch what Letterman does at the very beginning.

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002750.html#002750

flogen

I was about to post an opinion that Letterman let him away with too much and wasn't well researched enough to win the arguments he made.

Then I realised that it's a sad day when we have to rely on Americas comedians to take on O'Reilly's brank of twisted hatred of liberalism, and as a result honest answers and debate.

billy the squid

This was posted on crooks and liars. What is the story exactly with Cindy Sheehan calling the insurgients in Iraq Freedom Fighters. did she actually do this.

I to also thought he went a little easy on O'Reily.

Hobbes

Yes she did say freedom fighters. Which technically is correct although would be an insult to the US as it would imply they are the invaders.

Kind of funny in the US administration that they will not refer to insurgents with that word. They are either called terrorists or Saddamites (which sounds similar to Sodimites). Double plus good.

bounty

Letterman stirs BOR's cup with his pencil at the start Then after Dave has just told BOR that he doesnt believe the shepherd story, BOR asks "is this mine?" Dave points at the cup as he drinks and the crowd laughs

Letterman wrote:

I'm not smart enough to debate your point to point on this, but I have the feeling -- I have the feeling -- I have the feeling about 60 percent of what you say is crap. But I don't know that for a fact.

I like the way Dave uses 60%, meaning the majority of what BOR speaks is crap, and then how he talks over his victim's shoulder to Paul, to confirm his figures on how much crap he talks

I bet BOR bitched and whined about the interview on his spin show, i wonder what he said about the cup trick?

Hobbes

I think he gave O'Reilly a good spanking but was clearly not prepared for the interview. 10 minutes on media matters and he could of had loads of examples of Bills BS.

cousin_borat

Yeah, I happened to see the O'Reilly factor the next evening. He insisted that he enjoyed the appearance and would come back on. He left it to his two panelists to complain about and belittle Letterman. The funniest bit was at the end, O'Reilly reading out irate emails from his viewers about Letterman and O'Reillys treatment on the show.

Hobbes

Here is Colberts take on the incident. Don't drink while watching this.

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002769.html#002769

Snickers Man

Hobbes wrote:

Here is Colberts take on the incident. Don't drink while watching this.

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002769.html#002769

"I get the feeling that 60 per cent of what you say is crap."

What a magical rule of thumb assertion!! It's so unscientific, so unjustifiable, so unfair, apart from the fact that it's probably true.

I'm sure it could also be applied to many of the Right Wing Ranters on this side of the Atlantic. Usually, an investigation of the claims they make in any one article turns up the fact that the central point is as often as not bogus. Of course, it takes a letter to the editor that gets published days or weeks later to nullify many of the claims so a lot of the mud can stick.

This could be the new 'good player not a great player' phrase for the decade.

Love it!!!

the_dart

I think Bill O'Reilly is very fair and very balanced. I don't see what you people have against the man. He's a proud Irish-American. He's shined a light on left-wing smear merchants such as Hillary Clinton and Geroge Clooney.

"10 minutes on media matters and he could of had loads of examples of Bills BS."

Anyone who gets their arguments and "facts" from media matters has obviously lost the plot. They are smear merchants. All they do is watch and paste various clips. They do not show you the whole picture. They want you to hate good people like Bill, Sean Hannity and Neil Cavuto and by watching them, you're submitting to their vicious agenda.

Seems to me like you people are:

(a) against the war in Iraq
(b) Anti- Rupert Murdoch
(c) Anti Israeli
(d) supportive of various Islamic causes
(e) socialists

and...

(f) possibly anti-American.

flogen

the_dart wrote:

(a) against the war in Iraq
(b) Anti- Rupert Murdoch
(c) Anti Israeli
(d) supportive of various Islamic causes
(e) socialists

and...

(f) possibly anti-American.

I'd happy to hear how you came to those conclusions; especially c, d, e and f. If you can't, then you shouldn't be making such accusations.

I'd also love to see how you figure that Bill O'Reilly is fair or balanced, nothing I've ever seen of him has ever led me to believe that.

Gaillimhtaibhse

In terms of content, Letterman and O'Reilly are different. In terms of what keeps them on the air, they might be more similar than different? Could it be that both are "Entertainers" who rely heavily on the sweeps ratings and the fact that advertisers place ads (and cable producers fund) with highly rated shows? Letterman "entertains" his audience with humour, and O'Reilly "entertains" his audience with...(well, you be the judge).;)

the_dart

"Yes she did say freedom fighters. Which technically is correct although would be an insult to the US as it would imply they are the invaders. "

shows:

(a) sympathy to the insurgents in question.
(b) a hint of anti-americanism

and as for "socialists"

"10 minutes on media matters and he could of had loads of examples of Bills BS."

Well, you detest Bill O'Reilly. This is man who is right down the centre, fair and balanced, a humble correspondent. If you want to call him a traditionalist or put him a tiny bit right-wing then fine, you're entitled to your own opinion. We'll agree to differ. But the point is, people who are against O'Reilly are usually left-wing. They can't stand the fact that Fox News puts Conservatives on the air as well as liberals. Therefore, Fox News is balanced.

It also appears that this forum is part of a smear campaign against Bill. It is clear that you people are biased against Bill and should open up to the right view of things.

Snickers Man

Take your tongue out of your cheek. You'll do yourself a mischief.

flogen

the_dart wrote:

"Yes she did say freedom fighters. Which technically is correct although would be an insult to the US as it would imply they are the invaders. "

shows:

(a) sympathy to the insurgents in question.
(b) a hint of anti-americanism

No it doesn't; it just refuses to automatically swallow the US/UK hyperbole that we hear everyday. And it doesn't show any anti-Americanism, just because you think one side are fighting for freedom doesn't mean you dislike the other.

and as for "socialists"

"10 minutes on media matters and he could of had loads of examples of Bills BS."

That shows no socialist link; fair enough if you don't trust Media Matters, it doesn't make its readers socialists though.

Well, you detest Bill O'Reilly. This is man who is right down the centre, fair and balanced, a humble correspondent.

Bill O'Reilly is anything but humble... anything but humble and fair and balanced that is.

We'll agree to differ. But the point is, people who are against O'Reilly are usually left-wing. They can't stand the fact that Fox News puts Conservatives on the air as well as liberals. Therefore, Fox News is balanced.

How many liberal commentators does Fox News have, besides Alan Colmes (whom is put next to loud mouthed Sean Hannity, he doesn't even get his own show)?

It also appears that this forum is part of a smear campaign against Bill. It is clear that you people are biased against Bill and should open up to the right view of things.

Perhaps you should open up your opinions too. Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that Bill O'Reilly is a fair and balanced commentator?

Smurfpiss

I have to say O'reilly handled that alot better than letterman.... When letterman resorts to say "60% of what you say is crap" he's just decended into name calling. whether its true or not (maybe) or funny (most definately) doesn't matter. He was losing the arguement against a very strong debator.
To be honest the personal attack against Cindy Sheehan was slimey and would make me sick, but he made a strong enough arguement for remaining in iraq. somebody has to clean it up....I don't see them accepting the blame for what happened anytime soon.

Just on a note about the christmas stuff...that really pisses me off! ****ing happy holidays...

billy the squid

Actually I went and looked up that comment by sheehan on "freedom fighters."

What I believe she said about the insurgents was "they go to Iraq AS freedom fighters." by this i think she meant that they went to Iraq believing they were freedom fighters, I don't think she was calling them freedom fighters herself.

You have to remember, the price she paid for this war in Iraq is higher than most, it cost her a son. I don't know if she would call the people who killed her son "freedom fighters" somehow.

I think Bill O'Reilly is very fair and very balanced. I don't see what you people have against the man.

Only thing I have against him is that he is a liar and a bull****ter, He is also a hypocrit. While sitting on his radio show preaching about morals and christianity and what not, he is off writing pornographic novels.

He's a proud Irish-American. He's shined a light on left-wing smear merchants such as Hillary Clinton and Geroge Clooney.

George Clooney challenged Bill O'Reilly on NPR last year to a live debate, Cloony is still waiting for a reply from O'Reilly. Why does he not reply, because when faced with a person well researched enough to take him on, he looses his bottle. The same thing happened when O'Reilly challenged Media Matters to come on his show, Media Matters offered FOX a representative. Within days O'Reilly stated that he wouldnt have anyone from Media Matters on his show. Again this is evidence that he lost his bottle.

Anyone who gets their arguments and "facts" from media matters has obviously lost the plot. They are smear merchants. All they do is watch and paste various clips. They do not show you the whole picture. They want you to hate good people like Bill, Sean Hannity

I suggest that you take a look at media matters, they have broadcasted whole interviews carried out by both hannity and O'Reilly. You also forget that FOX news is availible here without the mythical media matters editing you speak of on SKY. Therefore it is safe to assume that there are those of us who do not only look to media matters to form an opinion on O'Reilly. O'Reilly's interview with Letterman was carried on ITV 2 if I am not mistaken. Crooks and Liars carried the entire interview with Letterman from start to finnish.

Seems to me like you people are:

(a) against the war in Iraq

Since when did being against a war which was started without UN sanction and based on Lies a crime. The President stood before his elected senators and congressmen and stated that Saddam Hussein was buying uranium from Africa, even though the CIA told him that this was not the case. When the person sent to investigate whether or not uranium was being bought in Africa went public to refute what the president said, someone in the Bush administration breached national security and put his wife, then a CIA operative in danger by outing her.

(b) Anti- Rupert Murdoch

This thread is about Bill O'Reilly, my personal feelings on Rupert Murdoch is irrelavant. Personally I think he did a better job of providing entertainment and movie channels and made a complete balls of his news endeavours.

(c) Anti Israeli

Another Generalisation. I would support an Israeli state, as long as innocent Arabs were not being picked off by members of the Israeli Army and police.

(d) supportive of various Islamic causes

All religions are the same if you ask me, none are more right than the other, and all are entitled to the same treatment. I would be of the opinion that people of Islamic faith are entitled to the same treatment as those of Jewish, Christian, budhist, hindu, Jedi, whatever.

(e) socialists

You don't have to be a socialist to know a bull****ter when you see one.

It also appears that this forum is part of a smear campaign against Bill. It is clear that you people are biased against Bill and should open up to the right view of things.

Does this mean that boards.ie is going to make it onto billy's sh1tlist

AARRRGH

the_dart wrote:

Seems to me like you people are:

(a) against the war in Iraq
(b) Anti- Rupert Murdoch
(c) Anti Israeli
(d) supportive of various Islamic causes
(e) socialists
(f) possibly anti-American.

I am a, c, d.

So what? Are you somehow suggesting this is wrong?

I don't get your point.

Anyone who doesn't have sympathy for the Iraqi's trying to get the invaders out of their country, does not have a balanced view. You cannot call an American who fights a soldier and an Iraqi who fights back a terrorist. If anything, the reverse is true.

To say Bill O'Reilly is fair and balanced sounds like you need to get your head checked.

Snickers Man

Smurfpiss wrote:

Just on a note about the christmas stuff...that really pisses me off! ****ing happy holidays...

It pisses me off too. But it's been going on for years over there. It's not some new initiative that O'Reilly has fearlessly uncovered from the dreaded secularist Liberals.

How long have we had to endure (even over here) that god-awful Budweiser 'Holiday Season' ad every Christmas? You know the one with the horses pullling a sleigh (Hello!!) and the dreadful dirge-like jingle that goes on for ever before an American voice wishes 'you and yours the very best wishes this holiday season'?

You know why I hate 'Happy Holidays'? Because its anti pluralist. It's anti multicultural.

If everybody has the same greeting then it means everybody has been integrated into the same bland homogenous dreadful whatever-you-do-don't-cause-offence culture. Being able to wish people of all breeds and creeds Happy Christmas in the knowledge that you will accept a Happy Hanukah back from them is true multicultural tolerance.

Wishing Happy Holidays is the opposite of that. It's monocultural snobbery. Yeucch!!

Smurfpiss

Snickers Man wrote:

Being able to wish people of all breeds and creeds Happy Christmas in the knowledge that you will accept a Happy Hanukah back from them is true multicultural tolerance.

Wishing Happy Holidays is the opposite of that. It's monocultural snobbery. Yeucch!!

Excellently put my good man!

damien

again from same site.

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002814.html#002814

Neil Cavuto

You guys are mouthing a far-left position - that is a marginal position in society which you're entitled to but what upsets me is I don't think your fathers would be approving of this.

At the end of the day, FOX News puts more liberals on the air than conservatives.

You guys looked at an eidted version of the David Letterman interview. If you look at the whole thing you will realise that Latterman has nothing on O' Reilly. The only thing he has going for him are his prompters in the crowd (who incidentally are well left of centre). Letterman spouted rubbish which sounds good but is actually wrong. If Cindy Sheehan started preaching Nazi ideals then by his logic she could do it. Bill O reilly is the first to say that she deserves all the sympathy she is getting. He's merely pointing out the dangers of us attaching such a large weight to her opinions just because she lost a family member in Iraq (my heart goes out to her by the way).

In the full version of the interview, Letterman ignores some extremely salient points O Reilly makes and merely moves on. This interview represents a hideous abuse of his power and complete abandonment of logic and reason. I suppose the most important point is that Letterman SAYS NOTHING. He is merely responding to far-left elements in society and, obviously, in the audience (who incidentally did actually give O reilly a round of applause once but that is normally left out of edited versions). The audience are sheep and for the most part they just follow the prompters. They are not going to disagree with Letterman even if he says things like "let's all beleive everything Cindy Sheehan says because she lost someone in Iraq".

That more peole do not see through this farce of an interview baffles me.

Hobbes

Neil Cavuto wrote:

At the end of the day, FOX News puts more liberals on the air than conservatives

Do you have a link for that source? I'd be intrested to read it.

If Cindy Sheehan started preaching Nazi ideals then by his logic she could do it.

Except that she hasn't and he hasn't actually made a comment on if she had. Your argument does not make sense.

In the full version of the interview,

That first link I posted was the full unedited interview between the two (including the applause for O'Reilly). While its true that Letterman should of researched his comments more it is also true that O'Reilly was basically spouting crap.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601040009 (His comments on the Silent Night song).

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601060009 (His comments on Cindy).

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512210005 (His comments on banning red+green retracted)

I'd say 90% of what he says is full of crap. So Letterman was wrong with his 60%.


.. Are you the real Neil Cavuto? Or just a fan?

I guess if we can get some footage of OBL with a Cindy badge it might be newsworthy to report.

coyote6

word.

damien

I see Google is picking up this thread then.

GuanYin

Neil Cavuto wrote:

but what upsets me is I don't think your fathers would be approving of this.

Really? Would you like to expand on what you mean by that?

At the end of the day, FOX News puts more liberals on the air than conservatives.

I'm with Hobbes on this one, FOX News isn't exactly renowned for its fair an unbiased reporting. Nor is it renowned for its open coverage of world events. The phrase "lowest common denominator" springs to mind.

However, if you'd like to back this up with a source.....

I

f Cindy Sheehan started preaching Nazi ideals then by his logic she could do it.

Thats an absurd conclusion to draw.

He's merely pointing out the dangers of us attaching such a large weight to her opinions just because she lost a family member in Iraq (my heart goes out to her by the way).

As opposed to us attaching a large weight to Bush's opinions because he stole an election (no hampered by the good folksat Fox News, it has been alleged). Or because Bush reckoned there was a "just reason" for the war, or for... etc etc

I suppose the most important point is that Letterman SAYS NOTHING. He is merely responding to far-left elements in society

Does it strike anyone that the term "far-left" has become the modern day equivalent of the word "heretic"?

Anytime you get a blinded fanatic who has his/her views opposed, you get cries of "far-left" as they raise thelarge pole and start the fire.....

Why do you have to be on the far-left to oppose O'Reilly's views (or the war on Iraq)?

That more peole do not see through this farce of an interview baffles me.

But we do see through the farce that is Fox News and the Fox Corp. Media company as a whole. Ironic isn't it?

the_dart

Originally posted by me:

"Seems to me like you people are:

(a) against the war in Iraq
(b) Anti- Rupert Murdoch
(c) Anti Israeli
(d) supportive of various Islamic causes
(e) socialists
(f) possibly anti-American."

Responded to by "dublindude"

"I am a, c, d.

So what? Are you somehow suggesting this is wrong?"

Now, I'm not going to debate the War in Iraq or Fox News in this particular message but your message, "dublindude", is bordering on treason. You need to to get your priorities right. I think many people in Iraq are supportive of the US Liberation of that country from a brutal tyrant. On top of that, we are in a War on Terror. Ireland is firmly in the American Camp. This country is an ally to America. Many Irish people have been murdered by fundamentalist Islamic Terrorists, let me give you a little breakdown.

(a) An Irish couple with there daughter were on one of the planes which crashed into the World Trade Centre Building
(b) I cannot give you a figure of the number of Irish people and Irish-Americans that were murdered in New York
(c) An Irish soldier serving in the Irish Guards was murdered in Operation Iraqi Freedom, 2003.
(d) Ken Bigley, an Irish passport holder from liverpool was taken hostage by fundamentalist Islamic militants (under the command of al zarqawee) and murdered.
(e) Margeret Hassan, Irish born aid-worker in Iraq was murdered.
(f) Young Irishwomen from Waterford murdered in Turkey bus bomb in July, murdered by Kurdish militants.
(g) I can't tell you the number of Irish-Americans and Irish-British soldiers that have been murdered serving in Iraq (these people are heroes by the way. They fought for our freedom)
(h)Irishman from Cavan murdered by fundamentalist Islamic terrorists in the London bombings in July
(i) I can't tell you the amount of Irish-British people who were murdered in the London bombings.


Now thats not to say that we shoudln't be supportive of our American and British friends even if we ourselves weren't attack. Of course if anything ever happens to our American and British allies, we shoudl be the first to stand up for them. But in this message, I'm mearly showing the facts on how many Irish people have been murdered by fundamentalist Islamic Terrorists because you're not going to hear it on left-wing, biased media sources such as RTÉ News.

We clearly have a stakehold in these events. We've been attacked and we should continue to support our American friends.

And before I'm branded as somewhat racist or anti-islamic, I'll state for the record that I have nothing against Islam. I'm only against fundamentalist Islamic Terrorirsts who murder innocent people, including there own!- Ask the people of Jordon what they think of Al Qaeda and you'll get a fair insight to what the ordinary muslim people think of Islamic terrorists, I'm sure they'll agree with me too.

the_dart

Speaking of racism, if anyone has been racist in this forum to date, then it is dublindude who has just stated that he is anti-Israeli - thats racist and he should clarify his comments immediately.

Neil Cavuto

My conclusion is not absurd. Letterman clearly stated "how could anyone not feel anything but complete sympathy for someone like cindy sheehan" or words to that effect in response to O Reillys statements about her opinions. Her opinions include calling Iraqi insurgents "freedom fighters" despite the undisputed fact that they intentionally murder innocents and calling american soldiers terrorists thereby insulting every soldier currently active and their families aswell. O' Reilly doesnt think she should be let away with that kind of slander - do you?

the_dart

[accidental double post]

the_dart

As for Damein M and his:

"http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchiv...14.html#002814"

That proves that msNBC are unprofessional. The anchor proved everything Bill said in that clip.

It is an outrage that a "news channel" would result to that. Also that anchor lied about a few things. He was saying that O'Reilly's ratings were going down. This is false. In fact, the Factors third re-run is getting higher ratings than LIVE msNBC.

As for this post by "Hobbes":

"http://mediamatters.org/items/200601040009 (His comments on the Silent Night song).

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601060009 (His comments on Cindy).

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512210005 (His comments on banning red+green retracted)

I'd say 90% of what he says is full of crap. So Letterman was wrong with his 60%."




- Yes, sure. I'd expect you to advertise/quote a left-wing smear merchant web-site with a clear agenda against Bill O'Reilly. - That's very fair and balanced!

Hobbes

the_dart wrote:

- Yes, sure. I'd expect you to advertise/quote a left-wing smear merchant web-site with a clear agenda against Bill O'Reilly. - That's very fair and balanced!

You have actually read the articles correct? You actually read the sources they link to that show he is full of crap?

Or you just dismiss out of hand because O'Reilly says so.

It is an outrage that a "news channel" would result to that.

Absolutly I think its terrible that another news channel would resort to name calling. Kind of funny that all they do is repeat back what O'Reilly says, which oddly enough is attacking other stations.

Neil Cavuto wrote:

calling american soldiers terrorists

Actually she has never said that. But please feel free to prove me wrong.

Hobbes

Actually lets try this the_dart. Go check the links for Media Matters I posted and then point me to sources that prove what was written there was wrong.

Bare in mind the third link is actually O'Reilly apologising for falsely accusing a school board of banning religous stuff.

. He was saying that O'Reilly's ratings were going down. This is false. In fact, the Factors third re-run is getting higher ratings than LIVE msNBC.

Which means nothing. O'Reilly factor even though it still has the highest viewing has been loosing viewers at a rate of 600,000 views a month for the last 3 months.

the_dart

"You have actually read the articles correct? You actually read the sources they link to that show he is full of crap?

Or you just dismiss out of hand because O'Reilly says so."

I dismiss media matters because it is a left-wing smear web-site with a clear agaenda against Bill O'Reilly and Fox News. You seem to love to quote from media matters. Do you despise Fox News and Bill o'Reilly because Media Matters told you to despise them?

You seem to have a chip on your shoulder about something and I wish you'd be more honest.

"Absolutly I think its terrible that another news channel would resort to name calling."

O'Reilly doesn't go around imitating other news anchors. What msNBC did was dispicable. They're like the ITV News 24 of America. They'll be out of business in the future.

"O'Reilly factor even though it still has the highest viewing has been loosing viewers at a rate of 600,000 views a month for the last 3 months."

It still has the highest viewing. Thats the important part. I suppose the 600,000 viewers you're referring to are the seasonal viewers such as yourself.

Hobbes

the_dart wrote:

I dismiss media matters because it is a left-wing smear web-site with a clear agaenda against Bill O'Reilly and Fox News.

Like I said, rather then dismiss hows about pointing to valid sources which prove what I linked to was full of crap. I will be willing to say your right if you can do that. Can you do that?

Until you can do that, it is hard to take your dismissal as nothing more then rantings.

Do you despise Fox News and Bill o'Reilly because Media Matters told you to despise them?

Actually if you bothered to read Media Matters (its clear you don't) they do all US media outlets. They even post stuff about media sites you claim to be left wing.

I dispise any so called Media source that reports so many incorrect statements and showing intolerance to others.

O'Reilly doesn't go around imitating other news anchors.

Oh right thats ok then, imitating is horrible :rolleyes: Is that the best you can come up with.

It still has the highest viewing. Thats the important part. I suppose the 600,000 viewers you're referring to are the seasonal viewers such as yourself.

I'd hardly call myself a Seasonal viewer. Its certainly one station I watch if but to get to see what is being spouted.

But no, those ratings don't tie in with seasonal viewing but thanks for trying. Actually they took a dive around the time of O'Reillys phone sex scandal and have been going down ever since.

Just in case you don't know about the phone sex scandal here are the court documents.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris1.html

... Here is some stuff to help you along.

1. Silent night being banned. - False.
The song "Cold in the night" refers to a childrens play, you can see here.
http://delrich.home.mindspring.com/tree.html

It is about a Christmas Tree. Written by the musical director of a Church that Ronald Reagan went to. Its all on that site.

2. The banning of Red and Green from a school. - False.
Here is a link to the court document in question.
http://www.libertylegal.org/pdfs/Plano%20Case.pdf

The only thing banned was in relation to dishes and decorations as the party had been declared Secular to begin with. Just in case you don't know what that means, it means all religious items were banned.

I'll leave you to try and disprove that O'Reilly has never been rude to Cindy at all.

GuanYin

Neil Cavuto wrote:

My conclusion is not absurd. Letterman clearly stated "how could anyone not feel anything but complete sympathy for someone like cindy sheehan" or words to that effect in response to O Reillys statements about her opinions. Her opinions include calling Iraqi insurgents "freedom fighters" despite the undisputed fact that they intentionally murder innocents and calling american soldiers terrorists thereby insulting every soldier currently active and their families aswell. O' Reilly doesnt think she should be let away with that kind of slander - do you?

How does that in any way relate to someone condoning (or indeed preaching) Nazi ideals? Can you point to any similarities in her sentiments or the target of her sentiments with Nazi ideals?

Neil Cavuto

youre missing the point psi you ****ing retard. The use of "Nazi ideals" was just to illustrate a point. The stuff she says is pretty terrible still and that was just an exaggeration for effect.

damien

the_dart wrote:

That proves that msNBC are unprofessional. The anchor proved everything Bill said in that clip.

Maybe he listened to Alanis Morrisette and got an idea.

It's like rain on your wedding day...

flogen

Neil Cavuto wrote:

youre missing the point psi you ****ing retard. The use of "Nazi ideals" was just to illustrate a point. The stuff she says is pretty terrible still and that was just an exaggeration for effect.

Neil Cavuto banned for 1 week for personal abuse.
Would you use that kind of language on your show, Neil?

the_dart

"Like I said, rather then dismiss hows about pointing to valid sources which prove what I linked to was full of crap. I will be willing to say your right if you can do that. Can you do that?"

You believe everything you see on a left-wing web site with a clear agenda against our humble correspondent and Fox News. This is a web site that just cuts and pastes bits of the O'Reilly Factor. Now there's a very informed, fair and balanced view on Bill, isn't.

I think you should take Bill's advice. You should watch the factor for a half hour, you'll get addicted, you'll become a factor fana nd he'll send you a hat, made with pride in America.

Now, are you going to keep dodging the question or can you actually give me hard evidence that Bill O'Reilly is unfair and biased (one thats not from media matters)? - Because if you must rely solely on media matters, then you have a very poor argument.

"I'll leave you to try and disprove that O'Reilly has never been rude to Cindy at all."

Re-watch the lettermann interview and I think thats evidence enough.

"Neil Cavuto banned for 1 week for personal abuse."

Ban the guy that supports Fox News yet "unf**ing real sky news" and the bad language the squid used against Bill is also allowed.

That seems to be unfair and biased if you ask me. Is it the policy of Boards.ie to ban those who come across as being Conservative? Do Boards.ie only allow left-wing people to post on these forums? Is Boards.ie supportive of a particular political view point that its posters aren't allowed to talk around? Do you bad all those who have a different viewpoint to you on... lets say Bill O'Reilly? - Because it seems to be that way and after reading previous threads that came up on google it seems that you ban many people who dissagree with you. I hope you can prove me wrong.

flogen

the_dart wrote:

Ban the guy that supports Fox News yet "unf**ing real sky news" and the bad language the squid used against Bill is also allowed.

That seems to be unfair and biased if you ask me. Is it the policy of Boards.ie to ban those who come across as being Conservative? Do Boards.ie only allow left-wing people to post on these forums? Is Boards.ie supportive of a particular political view point that its posters aren't allowed to talk around? Do you bad all those who have a different viewpoint to you on... lets say Bill O'Reilly? - Because it seems to be that way and after reading previous threads that came up on google it seems that you ban many people who dissagree with you. I hope you can prove me wrong.

If you have a problem with my moderation then I suggest you make a complaint in Feedback; otherwise stay on topic.
And for the record, bad language is permitted here but personal attacks are not; we're all mature enough to read the word fúck here.
And posters of all persuasions are free to post here but everyone has to follow the rules; if you have a complaint to make about a specific post then report it using the "report this post" button, and give details of your greviences.
Now, back on topic or Neil will have company.

the_dart

"Now, back on topic or Neil will have company." So, now you're making a direct threat against me? Yet when Hobbes went off topic in the other forum who responded with an attack on me.

I'll take your advice and I'll make the complaint now in due course.

billy the squid

Neil Cavuto wrote:

My conclusion is not absurd. Letterman clearly stated "how could anyone not feel anything but complete sympathy for someone like cindy sheehan" or words to that effect in response to O Reillys statements about her opinions. Her opinions include calling Iraqi insurgents "freedom fighters" despite the undisputed fact that they intentionally murder innocents and calling american soldiers terrorists thereby insulting every soldier currently active and their families aswell. O' Reilly doesnt think she should be let away with that kind of slander - do you?

My post was on page 1 of the thread so you probably missed it. Cindy sheehan never called the insurgents freedom fighters. she stated, that they went to Iraq "as" freedom fighters. much the same way that David Koresh went to Waco "as" the sone of God. It does not mean she was calling them Insurgents, she was simply pointing out that they saw themselves as freedom fighters. David koresh was not the son of God, but he saw himself "as" the son of God.

Hobbes

the_dart wrote:

You believe everything you see on a left-wing web site with a clear agenda against our humble correspondent and Fox News. This is a web site that just cuts and pastes bits of the O'Reilly Factor. Now there's a very informed, fair and balanced view on Bill, isn't.

Like I said, if what I linked to is wrong please prove me wrong with sources beyond your personal opinion. You have yet to do that.

Re-watch the lettermann interview and I think thats evidence enough.

So you are basing your whole argument on that interview? He says that he has never been rude to Cindy to that point yet called her "Terrorist", "Coward", "Loser"

Ban the guy that supports Fox News yet "unf**ing real sky news" and the bad language the squid used against Bill is also allowed.

He was banned for name calling.

flogen

the_dart wrote:

"Now, back on topic or Neil will have company." So, now you're making a direct threat against me? Yet when Hobbes went off topic in the other forum who responded with an attack on me.

I'll take your advice and I'll make the complaint now in due course.

I never made a direct threat about you but you don't seem to understand how this forum works; I thought it would be best to make that clear to you before you continue posting. You are new after all.
Hobbes on the other hand is here long enough to know what a "get back on topic" post implies.
Now, as I said to him, what goes on in other threads has no bearing on this one. If you feel hard done by, please report the post(s) in question or take it to feedback
Otherwise, back on topic please, and that doesn't mean give a response to this post, it means continue the discussion of the topic of the thread.

AARRRGH

the_dart wrote:

Now, I'm not going to debate the War in Iraq or Fox News in this particular message but your message, "dublindude", is bordering on treason.

You really have no idea what you're talking about do you? Giving strong opinions with no substance does not make them facts...

Do you have any idea of the reality in the world, or do you just blindly follow some right wing nuts opinion you see on TV?

Have you ever tried to educate yourself on what's really going on?

If we don't agree with your outrageous opinions you try to paint us as some kind of nazi supporters. I feel sorry for you (really).

billy the squid

[quote=the_dart[/quote]Now, I'm not going to debate the War in Iraq or Fox News in this particular message but your message, "dublindude", is bordering on treason.[/quote]

How so?

He said he was against the war on Iraq. Did you ask him why? I would also be against the war on iraq. simply because it was based on lies, it was unnecessary and that the US should have put more of its resources into going after Osama Bin Laden rather than invade Iraq. Iraq had bugger all to do with 9-11.

The first Downing Street Memo proves that Bush was considering an invasion of Iraq, not even 12 months after 9-11 and long before there was any talk of WMD in Iraq. This was a war of choice, not a war of necessity.

And only this week the latest Downing Street Memo states that Bush was willing to feed his electorate bull**** or as he puts it ""The diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning"

A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme.

· Mr Bush told Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours". Mr Bush added: "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]".

Now to another poster who wanted me to prove that FOX is biassed without mentioning Media matters. well there you go While the likes of NBC's Countdown and USA today carried the story, there was absoloutely no mention of it on FOX. Imagine, the president of the US was willing to entrap Sadam hussein and FOX didnt carry the story. Entrappment is illegal under US law by the way. and there was no guarantee that Sadam would have fired on the U2 plane which was made up to look like a UN aircraft.

He said he would be "anti-israel" he is not being racist here, he did not say he was anti jewish or anti semetic. I would be against Israel being where it is. especially when you have organisations like The Jewish Agency for Israel and Nefesh B'Nefesh giving financial assistance to those in the US who wish to colonize that part of the world. It has a fancy name too, Aliyah. What was predominantly the Arab world is being colonized in much the same way that Ireland was being colonized. The Israeli government offer great tax insentives also to those who wish to "make alyiah." and you wonder why the arab people are so pissed off. To object to this is not treasonous, its simply disagreeing with the way this part of the world is being colonized. nothing treasonous about that.

Of course you wont hear that of FOX either. If you want to know more I suggest you google "Israel National Radio" and "Tovia Singer."

Also there are a multitude of islamic groups who are out there doing good work. Even during Hurricane Katrina there were islamic groups collecting money to help the victims. the likes of WWL-4 in New Orleans didn't have any qualms about giving out the details of the various charities, whether they be Jewish, Cristian or Muslim as long as they were ready, willing and able to assist. Not all islamic groups are terrorists. By your logic, me being a republican means that I support the IRA and the Continuity IRA. This couldn't be further from the truth.

GuanYin

Neil Cavuto wrote:

youre missing the point psi you ****ing retard. The use of "Nazi ideals" was just to illustrate a point. The stuff she says is pretty terrible still and that was just an exaggeration for effect.

Oh the irony.

bounty

billy o'reilly is second only to kent hovind on my most hatest people list, because he is full of shjt

well done Hobbes, psi, dublindude, billy the squid and flogen, i agree with your views, and am glad you have taken the time to completly rebut Neil Cavuto/the_dart

letterman would make a great usa president

billy the squid

bounty wrote:

billy o'reilly is second only to kent hovind on my most hatest people list, because he is full of shjt

well done Hobbes, psi, dublindude, billy the squid and flogen, i agree with your views, and am glad you have taken the time to completly rebut Neil Cavuto/the_dart

letterman would make a great usa president

i would rank him fourth most hated after Ann Coulter, Geraldo Riveara, and Rush Limbaugh.

Ann Coulter is the one who thinks hurricanes are only named after women and gay men.

Geraldo is the one who made a hurricane Katrina evacuee enter a medical centre twice after his news helicopter picked her up off a roof because they didnt get a good enough camera angle of him bringing her in.

Rush Limbaugh is the jesus freak on Clear Chanel, I am not sure if he does FOX tv though.

the_dart

"Like I said, if what I linked to is wrong please prove me wrong with sources beyond your personal opinion. You have yet to do that. "

So what you're syaing is you believe everything on a left-wing smear web-site and that's all and you have no real evidence that Bill O'Reilly is unfair and biased? - ok, that's fine.

"You really have no idea what you're talking about do you? Giving strong opinions with no substance does not make them facts..."

I gave you a whole list of facts which you've just chose to ignore.

"Do you have any idea of the reality in the world, or do you just blindly follow some right wing nuts opinion you see on TV?"

Do you have any idea of what goes on in the real world, or do you just blindly follow some left-wing nuts opinion that you read on the Internet and chose to believe the opposite to what the US Government says?

"If we don't agree with your outrageous opinions you try to paint us as some kind of nazi supporters. I feel sorry for you (really)."

I feel sorry for you because you're mixing me up with someone else. I never accused anyone of being a Nazi supporter, I never used that title at all. Another gentleman used those words and I'd like you to apologise for accusing me of such a thing.

"How so?

He said he was against the war on Iraq."

The guy said he was supportive of Islamic causes. I assume he means he supports fundamentalist Islamic terrorists, in which case that would be bordering on treason. Actually it wouldn't, it wouldn't have completely crossed the line altogether. That gentleman chose to ignore the question on the table and dodge the issue. All we needed was for him to come out and say that he's not supportive of Islamic Extremism, but he couldn't do it.

Again, you people really need to take into account that many innocent Muslims have been murdered by fundamentalist Islamic terrorists and if you were to ask the people of Jordon what are their views on fundamentalist Islamic terrorists, I believe that they're opinion would be similar to my own views for obvious reasons.