Bill O'Reilly

[newbie]

Bill O'Reilly lays a lickin' on radical leftist Phil Donahue.

I watched it last night on the O'Reilly Factor (The No-Spin Zone), and it's now available on video on the Internet. 

Enjoy. 

I know I did. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Best watch it again. All I saw was Billy boy trying to be the bully again. Hardly a licking. Phil wasn't the least intimidated like most of his guests.

[B. Max]

Bill O'Reilly is well reseached and presents the facts, that's why he is hated by the left. When he exposed jessie jackson for the shake down artist that he is, that really got under their skin. Something they couldn't tolerate. They've been on a vendeta to get him ever since.

[PocketRocket]

Well, after watching the clip, I have to say nobody laid a lickin' on anybody.

It was just two guys trying to talk over each other, but it was refreshing to see Bill actually get talked over for a change.

[Shakeyhands]

Bill O'Reilly lays a lickin' on radical leftist Phil Donahue.

I watched it last night on the O'Reilly Factor (The No-Spin Zone), and it's now available on video on the Internet. 

Enjoy. 

I know I did. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please to explain the 'lickin' I too only saw Bill try to intimidate. At no point did Bill even try to offer an answer to any of Donahue's questions or points. I hardly see it as a lickin and do see it as Bill not being interested in dealing in facts. pretty sad really

[newbie]

Bill O'Reilly  is well reseached and presents the facts, that's why he is hated by the left. When he exposed jessie jackson for the shake down artist that he is, that really got under their skin. Something they couldn't tolerate. They've been on a vendeta to get him ever since.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't believe that is accurate. Seems to me it's the right who are the angry ones. I ask only why?? They have both houses, have their guy in office, control talk radio - what the hell more do you guys want. I think a round of prozak is in order -- and soon.

[tml12]

Bill O'Reilly  is well reseached and presents the facts, that's why he is hated by the left. When he exposed jessie jackson for the shake down artist that he is, that really got under their skin. Something they couldn't tolerate. They've been on a vendeta to get him ever since.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't believe that is accurate. Seems to me it's the right who are the angry ones. I ask only why?? They have both houses, have their guy in office, control talk radio - what the hell more do you guys want. I think a round of prozak is in order -- and soon.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The main problem with O'Reilly is his hypocrisy and his arrogance. I happen to agree with a lot of what he says. However, his hatred of those who disagree with him and his unwillingness to debate and compromise make his lose his credibility of being "a common guy with an independent opinion." He also is quick to criticize, but never compliment, Canada.

[Montgomery Burns]

O'Reilly gave a good spanking to Democrat Charles Rangel the other day. Rangel admitted that he was wrong when he had previously claimed that Bush had spent less money on blacks than Clinton had. Rangle is a race-baiter in the Jess Jackson/Al Sharpton mode, but I have to give him credit for admitting that he was wrong.

Rangel looked like a little school boy being lectured by the teacher (O'Reilly); funny stuff.

At least Rangel had the balls to appear on the No Spin Zone and take his lumps; which Howard Dean - the coward - has refused to appear on O'Reilly. :angry:

[newbie]

O'Reilly gave a good spanking to Democrat Charles Rangel the other day.  Rangel admitted that he was wrong when he had previously claimed that Bush had spent less money on blacks than Clinton had.  Rangle is a race-baiter in the Jess Jackson/Al Sharpton mode, but I have to give him credit for admitting that he was wrong.

Rangel looked like a little school boy being lectured by the teacher (O'Reilly); funny stuff. 

At  least Rangel had the balls to appear on the No Spin Zone and take his lumps; which Howard Dean - the coward - has refused to appear on O'Reilly.  :angry:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

O'Reilly (or O'liely) is a joke, a liar and a bully. He's just another guy on the right that manufactures information and adds his "spin" to it. There is nothing fair and balanced about his show, or the Fox news for that matter. People who buy into his crap are obviously not well read. But for those who are willing pry themselves away from Fox, here's just a couple (among many) sites that show O'Reilly for the person he is.

http://www.mediachannel.org/views/dissecto...falert148.shtml

http://mediamatters.org/items/200509210010

[newbie]

I forgot to mention Bill's writing ability. He recently wrote a book entitled, O'Reilly Factor for Kids. I imagine you'll find that right next to his smut publication, Those Who Trespass. As far as guests not appearing on his show, they are to be applauded . Dean isn't a coward by the way; he knows that all he'll be presented with will be a bullying show, featuring a B.S. host that over-shouts him.

[Montgomery Burns]

You are overreacting, Newbie. O'Reilly doesn't shout down his guests; they try to shout down O'Reilly, with their constant "why don't you send your children (clever codeword) to Iraq" baiting questions.

The O'Reilly Factor: No Spin Zone provides good shows, especially considering it is on for 5 hours per week. Although O'Reilly is right-of-centre, he is hardly a staunch conservative; he supports many liberal social issues, thus, making him somewhat unpopular with some of the right. I also like O'Reilly's viewer emails. He's not scared to read emails that bash him. One liberal wrote in and called the show The Fascist Factor. Neil Cavuto also reads anti-Cavuto emails on his show.

When was the last time you heard CNN's Jack Cafferty read out a pro-Bush email? And Bush won 51-48.

Media Matters is funded by the radical billionaire George Soros. They state that they are a progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

Yeah right. That infamous rightwing MSM.

Those zany "progressives".

[Black Dog]

Although O'Reilly is right-of-centre, he is hardly a staunch conservative; he supports many liberal social issues, thus, making him somewhat unpopular with some of the right.

Yeah I hear he's pretty liberal with a loofah.

O'Reilly gave a good spanking to Democrat Charles Rangel the other day.

Well, if anyone would know a good spanking, it's Bill.

[newbie]

Overreacting Monty? That's what the truth is called now? There is no doubt O'Reilly's behaviour entertains some folks. But he is not a newsperson. He is an entertainer who distorts facts to the ignorance of most people that watch him. He lied about his background, he lied about receiving some award, he lied that he didn't tell people to boycott Pepsi, he lies about statitistics.....it never seems to end. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1108

This guy has 0 credibility for factual information. Other than his outrageous and bullying tactics, he ain't got much going for him. He's just another angry republican white guy with a microphone.

[Montgomery Burns]

I still contend that you are overreacting, Newbie. I doubt you have even watched The O'Reilly Factor. Yes it is entertaining, because you actually see fierce passionate debate on Fox News between lefties and righties. And dropping another leftwing Media Matters (FAIR) link will still not convince me that O'Reilly isn't credible. He is known as an excellent researcher and he trips up liberals; thus your anger towards him. It is the liberal media who has been caught in scandal after scandal, not Fox News.

[newbie]

He's been caught in too many lies Monty. Try doing a little research outside the box. Like I said, his show (and yes I've seen it) is nothing but conservative entertainment. I'm not upset with him. I feel sorry for this man who seems to have so much anger inside.

A few more sites exposing O'Reilly's lies:

http://prorev.com/oreilly.htm

http://princeroy.blogspot.com/2003_03_23_p...oy_archive.html

http://slate.msn.com/id/2078577/

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/09/06/desper...es_the_poor.php

[Shakeyhands]

You are overreacting, Newbie.  O'Reilly doesn't shout down his guests; they try to shout down O'Reilly,  with their constant "why don't you send your children (clever codeword) to Iraq" baiting questions.

The O'Reilly Factor:  No Spin Zone provides good shows, especially considering it is on for 5 hours per week.  Although O'Reilly is right-of-centre, he is hardly a staunch conservative; he supports many liberal social issues, thus, making him somewhat unpopular with some of the right.  I also like O'Reilly's viewer emails.  He's not scared to read emails that bash him.  One liberal wrote in and called the show The Fascist Factor.  Neil Cavuto also reads anti-Cavuto emails on his show. 

When was the last time you heard CNN's Jack Cafferty read out a pro-Bush email?  And Bush won 51-48.

Media Matters is funded by the radical billionaire George Soros.  They state that they are a progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

Yeah right.    That infamous rightwing MSM. 

Those zany "progressives". 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Monty, I've heard this label, radical, used countless times along with Activist Can you explain what is meant by this? Why is George Soros radical? Why are judges, among others, labeled activist? I'm asking an honest question here. As far as I can tell its to further vilify in the eyes of the right, am I correct? Its very similar to the Liberal label, meant to disparage. Am I right?

[Black Dog]

And dropping another leftwing Media Matters (FAIR) link will still not convince me that O'Reilly isn't credible.

Media Matters and FAIR are two different organizations.

[Montgomery Burns]

And dropping another leftwing Media Matters (FAIR) link will still not convince me that O'Reilly isn't credible.

Media Matters and FAIR are two different organizations.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Two different organizations...of the same ilk.

FAIR is a tax-exempt leftwing "media watchdog" organization founded in 1986 by radical activist Jeff Cohen. It's lavishly funded by the MacArthur Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and Bill Moyers' Schumann Center. It's political cult leader Noam Chomsky was keynote speaker at its 15th Anniversary party. It's promoted by the liberal media because FAIR argues that the media's bias is not liberal, but conservative, thereby providing a fig leaf that covers their own bias. It staged a "March on the Media" with radical Paper Tiger TV at 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City (remember those clowns camped outside Fox News demanding that the station shut up and be taken off the air?)

[Montgomery Burns]

You are overreacting, Newbie.  O'Reilly doesn't shout down his guests; they try to shout down O'Reilly,  with their constant "why don't you send your children (clever codeword) to Iraq" baiting questions.

The O'Reilly Factor:  No Spin Zone provides good shows, especially considering it is on for 5 hours per week.  Although O'Reilly is right-of-centre, he is hardly a staunch conservative; he supports many liberal social issues, thus, making him somewhat unpopular with some of the right.  I also like O'Reilly's viewer emails.  He's not scared to read emails that bash him.  One liberal wrote in and called the show The Fascist Factor.   Neil Cavuto also reads anti-Cavuto emails on his show. 

When was the last time you heard CNN's Jack Cafferty read out a pro-Bush email?   And Bush won 51-48.

Media Matters is funded by the radical billionaire George Soros.  They state that they are a progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

Yeah right.      That infamous rightwing MSM.  

Those zany "progressives".  

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Monty, I've heard this label, radical, used countless times along with Activist Can you explain what is meant by this? Why is George Soros radical? Why are judges, among others, labeled activist? I'm asking an honest question here. As far as I can tell its to further vilify in the eyes of the right, am I correct? Its very similar to the Liberal label, meant to disparage. Am I right?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1) Claiming that America needed "a regime change" to oust President Bush, Soros said that he would gladly have traded his entire fortune in exchange for a Bush defeat in the 2004 election. In a November 2003 interview with the WaPo, he stated that defeating Bush in 2004 "is the central focus of my life"..... "a matter of life and death"....."America under Bush is a danger to the world, and I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is."

2) Asserting that "the Republican party has been captured by a bunch of extremists," Soros accuses the Bush administration of following a "supremacist ideology" in whose rhetoric he claims to hear echoes from his childhood in occupied Hungary. "When I hear Bush say, 'You're either with us or against us,' " he explains, "it reminds me of the Germans. It conjures up memories of Nazi slogans on the walls, Der Feind Hort mit (The enemy is listening). My experiences under Nazi and Soviet rule have sensitized me."

3) Soros also gave $5 million to MoveOn.org, the group that has produced political ads likening Bush to Adolf Hitler.

That's why I call Soros a radical.

As for activist judges, Answers.com writes: A judge is considered activist when he or she uses the power of judicial review to overturn laws or articulate new legal principles with insufficient precedent, especially for purposes of shaping government policy.

[Black Dog]

Two different organizations...of the same ilk.

And your point is....?

That's why I call Soros a radical.

Since when is donating money to a political cause the mark of a radical? If that's the criteria, then Richard Mellon Scaife is Che Guevera.

[Montgomery Burns]

Two different organizations...of the same ilk.

And your point is....?

That's why I call Soros a radical.

Since when is donating money to a political cause the mark of a radical? If that's the criteria, then Richard Mellon Scaife is Che Guevera.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1) What part confused you?

2) "...defeating Bush in 2004 [is] a matter of life and death".

Comparing the Bush Administration to the Nazis.

Giving $5 million to an organization that produced ads likening Bush to Hitler.

Yeah, he's just your typical political donator.

[masterkush]

And dropping another leftwing Media Matters (FAIR) link will still not convince me that O'Reilly isn't credible.

your minds are now being controlled

do not adjust your set

comercial

10 days huricane 24/7

comercial

reps and demos arguing

comercial

nintendo ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

sleep !

work

repeat

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!

Do I understand your question man,is it hopeless and forlorn

RIP

[Shady]

Watch out everyone, troll alert and insanity alert!

[masterkush]

Watch out everyone, troll alert and insanity alert!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

its insane alright