From here (http://www.newscorpse.com/Pix/Play/OReilly_Words/index.html).

Researchers at Indiana University have just published the results of a study that provides academic validation that O'Reilly is a textbook propagandist. Amongst the key findings is that:

"...the Fox News personality consistently paints certain people and groups as villains and others as victims to present the world, as he sees it, through political rhetoric."

The study itemized seven propaganda devices as defined by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis:

Name calling - giving something a bad label to make the audience reject it without examining the evidence.
Glittering generalities - the opposite of name calling.
Card stacking - the selective use of facts and half-truths.
Bandwagon - appeals to the desire, common to most of us, to follow the crowd.
Plain folks - an attempt to convince an audience that they, and their ideas, are “of the people”.
Transfer - carries over the authority, sanction and prestige of something we respect or dispute to something the speaker would want us to accept.
Testimonials - involving a respected (or disrespected) person endorsing or rejecting an idea or person.

O’Reilly was found to have employed six of the seven nearly 13 times each minute. This is an important statistic because it is not merely the use of these devices that define their effect. It is the repetition and the absence of any substantive debate that produces the desired manipulation of free thought. This is why O'Reilly repeatedly interrupts and cuts off his guests - to keep them from diluting the rhetorical Kool-Aid. And contrary to his assertions that he doesn't "do personal attacks," IU has documented the reality that any cognitively functional bipedal hominoid has already figured out - O'Reilly is a bullying buffoon:
"O’Reilly called a person or a group a derogatory name once every 6.8 seconds, on average, or nearly nine times every minute during the editorials that open his program each night." [See the Stalking Points Memos]

Researchers at Indiana University have just published the results of a study that provides academic validation that O'Reilly is a textbook propagandist.

Gee.

There's a real fucking shocker.

:rolleyes:

I can't believe they did a study like this...how lame.

However, he does often use many of those tactics. I've listened to less and less of Oreilly over the last year. I used to consider him fair, although slightly conservative. But I've realized he is fair but not-balanced. He's fair in the fact that he'll will call out conservatives for wrongdoings and see both sides of an issue, but he is not "balanced" because 90% of the topics he talks about have become anti-liberal. He spends almost his entire radio show every day attacking the left and he occasionally throws in the "conservatives do it too" disclaimer. He'll bash liberals for an entire one-hour topic and spend 5 seconds saying "conservatives do it too". A "balanced" person would spend roughly 30 minutes on the liberal wrongdoing and 30 minutes on the conservative wrongdoings. He can do whatever he wants, but he needs to stop hiding behind this "I'm not a conservative, I'm a traditionalist" claim. Its like when liberals say "I'm not liberal, I'm a progressive".

pretty much every media source contains all of the descriptions on your list

Doesn't say much for the state of mass media, does it?

O'Reilly does all those things and is called a biased pundit (which he is).

Michael Moore does all those things and is called a documentarian (which he aint).

You can't really blame Uncle Bill. It is an opinion show.

You do know what an opinion is don't you?






Bill O'reilly: Propaganda Pimp

From here (http://www.newscorpse.com/Pix/Play/OReilly_Words/index.html).

Yep!



O'Reilly does all those things and is called a biased pundit (which he is).

Michael Moore does all those things and is called a documentarian (which he aint).

Doesn't say much for the state of mass media, does it?

You can say that again... but this mass media is hacks for both sides.. and the majority see liberals constantly getting the advantage when it comes to news coverage.

There's an article foating around the blogosphere that Bill O. has threatened Hillary Clinton (should she be elected) and the secret service is looking into it.

I will post a link if I can find it.

and the majority see liberals constantly getting the advantage when it comes to news coverage.
Even if it were true that the majority felt that way, why should we believe the majority? Simply because it's the majority?

Because if it were true that the majority felt that liberals got the advantage, why would it be that way?

Perhaps because the opposite is in fact true, and the advantage the conservatives enjoy is being used to influence the population's views on media relations?

Name calling - giving something a bad label to make the audience reject it without examining the evidence.
Glittering generalities - the opposite of name calling.
Card stacking - the selective use of facts and half-truths.
Bandwagon - appeals to the desire, common to most of us, to follow the crowd.
Plain folks - an attempt to convince an audience that they, and their ideas, are “of the people”.
Transfer - carries over the authority, sanction and prestige of something we respect or dispute to something the speaker would want us to accept.
Testimonials - involving a respected (or disrespected) person endorsing or rejecting an idea or person.

I invite every person here to note these 7 techniques the next time they listen to Rush Limbaugh.

Talk about a **textbook** propagandist.

There's an article foating around the blogosphere that Bill O. has threatened Hillary Clinton (should she be elected) and the secret service is looking into it.

I will post a link if I can find it.

Yes - heard it on Olberman last night - one of bill o' fans sent an email to his website - and stated "if Clinton wins election - he's got his guns loaded and ready and asked bill o if he has his guns ready too" :@@:

The ONLY think I like about bill o is the way he's for protecting children and going after the judges that give these child rapists light sentences.:mad:
Otherwise - he's comical to watch really - and Keith really goes after him on his show:hula:

Originally Posted by Decka
and the majority see liberals constantly getting the advantage when it comes to news coverage.

Even if it were true that the majority felt that way, why should we believe the majority? Simply because it's the majority?

Because if it were true that the majority felt that liberals got the advantage, why would it be that way?

Perhaps because the opposite is in fact true, and the advantage the conservatives enjoy is being used to influence the population's views on media relations?

Exactly so.

http://aycu17.webshots.com/image/10176/2005200088335397578_rs.jpg

I invite every person here to note these 7 techniques the next time they listen to Rush Limbaugh.

He doesn't Bandwagon.

I like how anything called a "Study" get insant credibility. Its the same bullshit that comes out of the mouts of half the idiots around this forum day in and day out that they got from bushishitlersson.com

So?

The "techniques" listed in the article could also be applied to every politician/election campaign also.

Plus, which political pundit is NOT a propagandist?

studys are the stupidest things I can think of, or at least our reaction to them. "study says people who have been in a car more likely to get cancer". no shit, since pretty much every human being in the country has been in a car. Then some moron politician comes out and say "we need to examine how much time our youth are spending in cars".

i heard one on the other day that said "10 year university study finds that if you want to be do well in sciences like physics and chemistry you should take math"

Yes - heard it on Olberman last night - one of bill o' fans sent an email to his website - and stated "if Clinton wins election - he's got his guns loaded and ready and asked bill o if he has his guns ready too" :@@:

The ONLY think I like about bill o is the way he's for protecting children and going after the judges that give these child rapists light sentences.:mad:
Otherwise - he's comical to watch really - and Keith really goes after him on his show:hula:

To follow up --a blogger turned in O'reilly to the secret service for making the death threats against Hillary because he (Bill) said in a very clear manner that if Hillary is elected, he (Bill) will be on the secret service wanted list. Pharaprasing.

To follow up --a blogger turned in O'reilly to the secret service for making the death threats to Hillary.


that is TOO FUNNY - LOL

Gee.

There's a real fucking shocker.

:rolleyes:

Well,He did cut his teeth at CBS,then ABC as a News Correspondent.
I guess it won't be a stretch,to assume he learnt some bad
habits at those Liberal bastions.

Gee.

There's a real fucking shocker.

:rolleyes:

Nah, I'd say THIS is a "real fucking shocker"

https://www.akarally.com/images/shocker-2.jpg

O'Reilly does all those things and is called a biased pundit (which he is).

Michael Moore does all those things and is called a documentarian (which he aint).

Hmmm, Michael Moore gets called a propagandist and O'Reilly gets called fair-and-balanced. Guess it depends on who you're listening to.

They are both political "hacks" and if you think otherwise... you are sorely mistaken.

BTW ... I don't think Brooks said that O'Reilly was "fair and balanced"... he siad he was a biased pundit.

I invite every person here to note these 7 techniques the next time they listen to Rush Limbaugh.

Talk about a **textbook** propagandist.

i suggest you avoid any and all mirrors.

I invite every person here to note these 7 techniques the next time they listen to Rush Limbaugh.




Or when they listen to John Hightower, Janine Garafalo, Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, Lionel, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, or any other 'commentator'.

Half of them don't believe what they are saying but say what they think will keep their show on the airwaves.

I can rembember listening to Lionel on WABC NY when he was a conservative with the identifying phrase, "Lock and Load" accompanied by the sound of a round being chambered. He lost his gig at ABC and resurfaced on Air America as a liberal spokesperson.

I can rembember listening to Lionel on WABC NY when he was a conservative with the identifying phrase, "Lock and Load" accompanied by the sound of a round being chambered. He lost his gig at ABC and resurfaced on Air America as a liberal spokesperson.
Yeah, we all know Air America gets better ratings than conservative talk radio. He must've changed to appeal to the radio audience.

Plus, which political pundit is NOT a propagandist?

Thom Hartmann.

:thumbs:

I can rembember listening to Lionel on WABC NY when he was a conservative with the identifying phrase, "Lock and Load" accompanied by the sound of a round being chambered. He lost his gig at ABC and resurfaced on Air America as a liberal spokesperson.

Pfffffft, yeah I love it up here when they cross the floor suddenly everything they believed yesterday evaporates and the new party is the only one to support.

Thom Hartmann.

:thumbs:

In your mind, Dharmabum, in your mind.

Thom Hartmann is a liberal radio commentator who took over Al Franken's spot on Air America. That hardly makes him an unbiased commentator.

They are both political "hacks" and if you think otherwise... you are sorely mistaken.

BTW ... I don't think Brooks said that O'Reilly was "fair and balanced"... he siad he was a biased pundit.

So,yer saying you know how O'Reilly votes.?
Sorry but yer wrong.
Just like Greta Van Sustern was a Huge Liberal when at CNN
she adamently refuses to state her Political affiliation.
Plus FOX has Geraldo,who was on Prime time at 9pm
at CNBC during the Monica flap.
There was Absolutely no more Partisan Hack {Bias} supporter
of Slick Willy than Geraldo.

So,yer saying you know how O'Reilly votes.?
Sorry but yer wrong.


I bet I could correctly predict how O'Reilly votes on 90% of the issues. He may go out of his way to not say who he votes for but that doesn't mean I don't know his views on everything he gives his opinion on (and if Hillary is running, I absolutely know how he's voting since he's said he'd "actively campaign against her", or something like that).

They are both political "hacks" and if you think otherwise... you are sorely mistaken.

BTW ... I don't think Brooks said that O'Reilly was "fair and balanced"... he siad he was a biased pundit.

I agree they're both political hacks.

And I didn't say Brooks said he was "fair and balanced". He said O'Reilly gets slapped with a negative label, and I gave him an example of people giving him a positive one.

I bet I could correctly predict how O'Reilly votes on 90% of the issues. He may go out of his way to not say who he votes for but that doesn't mean I don't know his views on everything he gives his opinion on (and if Hillary is running, I absolutely know how he's voting since he's said he'd "actively campaign against her", or something like that).

Al Franken made a big deal over O'Reilly's book,when it came out.
The fact O'Reilly said he's Independent and grew-up in Levittown,NY.
O'Reilly IS a conservatibe,but not dyed-in-the-wool.
He's pretty Anti-war.
At least Iraq,BTW.

Thom Hartmann is a liberal radio commentator who took over Al Franken's spot on Air America. That hardly makes him an unbiased commentator.
He may be biased, but that doesn't make him a propagandist.

Nappy, if those who lean right are considered propagandists what is it about those on the left that makes them immune from the same charge?

Thom Hartmann is as much a propagandist as any commentator on FOX.

I have not listened to Thom Hartmann, but what I have heard of Bill O'Reilly makes him an unadulterated propagandist. Nobody is immune to anything. I wouldn't hesitate to apply the propagandist label to people like Al Franken.

And I didn't say Brooks said he was "fair and balanced". He said O'Reilly gets slapped with a negative label, and I gave him an example of people giving him a positive one.

Understood.

Al Franken made a big deal over O'Reilly's book,when it came out.
The fact O'Reilly said he's Independent and grew-up in Levittown,NY.
O'Reilly IS a conservatibe,but not dyed-in-the-wool.
He's pretty Anti-war.
At least Iraq,BTW.

The one thing I like about O'Reilly is that he is not dyed-in-the-wool. He's not one of these idealouge conservatives who will agree with everything conservatives do, and bash everything liberals do. That separates him from people like Hannity, Savage, and Limbaugh.

And he is not "anti-Iraq war", at least not when the war started. He admits now that things are not going well, but he still believes it would be bad for us to pull out (unless he's changed that opinion in the last couple months).

No Bill O'Reilly thread would be complete without revisiting his great falafel quote:

"Well, if I took you down there then I'd want to take a shower with you right away, that would be the first thing I'd do ... yeah, we'd check into the room, and we would order up some room service and uh and you'd definitely get two wines into you as quickly as I could get into you I would get 'em into you ... maybe intravenously get those glasses of wine into you ...

"You would basically be in the shower and then I would come in and I'd join you and you would have your back to me and I would take that little loofa thing and kinda' soap up your back ... rub it all over you, get you to relax, hot water .... and um ... you know, you'd feel the tension drain out of you and uh you still would be with your back to me then I would kinda' put my arm -- it's one of those mitts those loofa mitts you know, so I got my hands in it ... and I would put it around front, kinda' rub your tummy a little bit with it, and then with my other hand I would start to massage your boobs, get your nipples really hard ... 'cuz I like that and you have really spectacular boobs ...

"So anyway I'd be rubbing your big boobs and getting your nipples really hard, kinda' kissing your neck from behind ... and then I would take the other hand with the falafel (sic) thing and I'd put it on your pussy but you'd have to do it really light, just kind of a tease business ..."

ROTFLMAO!!

Ummm... WTF??

Ummm... WTF??

You were unaware of O'Reilly's sexual harassment of one of his female producers.....?!?!?

He was speaking to her over the phone, making all manner of lewd, lascivious, sexually graphic comments; she informed him she had no interest in his continuing such a line of talk; he then told her he was watching a porno movie and launched into his falafel fantasy.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris16.html

She sued. Bill O'Reilly --Bastion of Old Time Conservative Morality that he is-- settled out of court.

No Bill O'Reilly thread would be complete without revisiting his great falafel quote:

"Well, if I took you down there then I'd want to take a shower with you right away, that would be the first thing I'd do ... yeah, we'd check into the room, and we would order up some room service and uh and you'd definitely get two wines into you as quickly as I could get into you I would get 'em into you ... maybe intravenously get those glasses of wine into you ...

"You would basically be in the shower and then I would come in and I'd join you and you would have your back to me and I would take that little loofa thing and kinda' soap up your back ... rub it all over you, get you to relax, hot water .... and um ... you know, you'd feel the tension drain out of you and uh you still would be with your back to me then I would kinda' put my arm -- it's one of those mitts those loofa mitts you know, so I got my hands in it ... and I would put it around front, kinda' rub your tummy a little bit with it, and then with my other hand I would start to massage your boobs, get your nipples really hard ... 'cuz I like that and you have really spectacular boobs ...

"So anyway I'd be rubbing your big boobs and getting your nipples really hard, kinda' kissing your neck from behind ... and then I would take the other hand with the falafel (sic) thing and I'd put it on your pussy but you'd have to do it really light, just kind of a tease business ..."

ROTFLMAO!!

OK,so you snatched a phone transcript of Bill's notorious
Harassment Law suit.Which he settled and kinda admitted to.
At least he talks and act like a Man.
That's more than can be said about you,thar Old man.
Why s'not just find a rocking chair,and take a long snooze.
You've got about enough Pizazz in yer posts,to Turn-on
a sagging meter maid.

OCTOBER 13--Hours after Bill O'Reilly accused her of a multimillion dollar shakedown attempt, a female Fox News producer fired back at the TV star today, filing a lawsuit claiming that he subjected her to repeated instances of sexual harassment and spoke often, and explicitly, to her about phone sex, vibrators, threesomes, masturbation, the loss of his virginity, and sexual fantasies. Below you'll find a copy of Andrea Mackris's complaint, an incredible page-turner that quotes O'Reilly, 55, on all sorts of lewd matters. Based on the extensive quotations cited in the complaint, it appears a safe bet that Mackris, 33, recorded some of O'Reilly's more steamy soliloquies.

The above is taken from TSG, where the quote given by Sedan and attested to by Freethinker is given. Notise the word appears. Andrea Mackris appearsto be trying to shake down Bill O'Reilly. She appears to quote him but it just as much appears to be a blatant attempt to scare him in to giving her lots of money.

It also appears that both Sedan and Freethinker are taking something that appears to be outrageous and unbelievably stupid for a well known public figure to say over the phone and not only accepting it as fact but diseminating it as fact.

It appears that our two leftist are more interested in smearing O'Reilly than sticking to the topic of commentators being propagandists.

Hmmm,
1. Michael Moore gets called a propagandist
2. and O'Reilly gets called fair-and-balanced. Guess it depends on who you're listening to.1. Which he is
2. Which he isn't.

Who says O'Reilly is fair and balanced?

Who says O'Reilly is fair and balanced?
Is he not the highest rated show on the channel that claims to be "fair and balanced" ?

1. Which he is
2. Which he isn't.

Who says O'Reilly is fair and balanced?

i say he's fair, his guests answer the question or get cut off...but not so balanced. more of his left leaning guests try to spin the questions and change the subject, hence they reap what they sow.

something that appears to be outrageous and unbelievably stupid for a well known public figure to say
The funny thing about our well-known figures is they often lose their shit and do stuff that is incredibly dumb. Most of the time they don't get called out on them, by virtue of who they are. How long did it take for Michael Vick to get hammered? Can anybody say, "Paris Hilton?"

i say he's fair, his guests answer the question or get cut off...but not so balanced. more of his left leaning guests try to spin the questions and change the subject, hence they reap what they sow.

No one does more to STEER a guest than Matthews of - HARDBALL's -
And Keith the Kook,is just a blathering instigator and bigot.
Oberman,seldom has ANY Republicans ON.
Unless you wanna call John Dean,a Repubbie.
At least FOX will not air a segment on - O'Reilly Factor -or
- Hannity & Colmes - w/o a counterpoint or opposing political view.
O'Reilly is very conservative,but also very obstinate.
I think he might have voted for Clinton,once.
Clinton is a Populist and a Moderate.
As far as Matthews,he,like Greta Van Sustern,will not discuss
their voting record.

i say he's fair, his guests answer the question or get cut off...but not so balanced. more of his left leaning guests try to spin the questions and change the subject, hence they reap what they sow.

A guest WILL get cut off on - O'Reilly - but seldom.
If a dyed-in-the-wool Liberal advocate,won't stop with the
talking points,and is asked to answer the question,Bill may get
ticked and cut off.It's happens about twice a month.
Hannity will just hammer away,and the ask the same question a
dozen times,and then shake head.
Like round hears,only the head is a Pin.

Is he not the highest rated show on the channel that claims to be "fair and balanced" ?If your conclusion is that he is fair and balanced i disagree with you.

In your mind, Dharmabum, in your mind.

Thom Hartmann is a liberal radio commentator who took over Al Franken's spot on Air America. That hardly makes him an unbiased commentator.

That is not the question I was answering.

This is:


Plus, which political pundit is NOT a propagandist?

It appears that our two leftist are more interested in smearing O'Reilly than sticking to the topic of commentators being propagandists.

While you, Frogger, are staunchly dedicated to defending O'Reilly (no appear, in this case).

Why am I not surprised?

Does it not occur to you that O'Reilly NEVER would have settled the case out of court if he was innocent of the charges?

:rolleyes:

1. Which he is
2. Which he isn't.

Who says O'Reilly is fair and balanced?

I've heard MANY callers on his radio show over the years make that claim in one form or another.

While you, Frogger, are staunchly dedicated to defending O'Reilly (no appear, in this case).

Why am I not surprised?

Does it not occur to you that O'Reilly NEVER would have settled the case out of court if he was innocent of the charges?

:rolleyes:

The interesting thing is for some guest to bring it up.
Or even hint they will.
O'Reilly pleaded,he will under NO circumstance
EVER talk about that Harassment Lawsuit... AGAIN.

While you, Frogger, are staunchly dedicated to defending O'Reilly (no appear, in this case).

Why am I not surprised?

Does it not occur to you that O'Reilly NEVER would have settled the case out of court if he was innocent of the charges?

:rolleyes:

People settle court cases for all kinds of reasons (especially people in the spotlight). However, I specifically remember O'Reilly saying that "Michael Jackson settling our of court (in the early '90s) equated to an admission of guilt, no one would do that if they're innocent".

I've heard MANY callers on his radio show over the years make that claim in one form or another.Then take it up with them.

OCTOBER 13--Hours after Bill O'Reilly accused her of a multimillion dollar shakedown attempt, a female Fox News producer fired back at the TV star today, filing a lawsuit claiming that he subjected her to repeated instances of sexual harassment and spoke often, and explicitly, to her about phone sex, vibrators, threesomes, masturbation, the loss of his virginity, and sexual fantasies. Below you'll find a copy of Andrea Mackris's complaint, an incredible page-turner that quotes O'Reilly, 55, on all sorts of lewd matters. Based on the extensive quotations cited in the complaint, it appears a safe bet that Mackris, 33, recorded some of O'Reilly's more steamy soliloquies.

The above is taken from TSG, where the quote given by Sedan and attested to by Freethinker is given. Notise the word appears. Andrea Mackris appearsto be trying to shake down Bill O'Reilly. She appears to quote him but it just as much appears to be a blatant attempt to scare him in to giving her lots of money.Actually, the paragraph uses the word 'appears' anent the likely existence of recordings, not any kind of shakedown.It also appears that both Sedan and Freethinker are taking something that appears to be outrageous and unbelievably stupid for a well known public figure to say over the phone and not only accepting it as fact but diseminating it as fact.O'Reilly must be an easy guy to shake down if he paid millions to settle the suit. I'm surprised women aren't lining up to sue him if all you have to do is make an unfounded accusation. I mean, you can believe that if you want to. OR, you could take the more rational view that he settled the case because she had the goods on him. She'd have gone to jail on extortion charges if she hadn't.It appears that our two leftist are more interested in smearing O'Reilly than sticking to the topic of commentators being propagandists.Guilty as charged. I'm always up for a little O'Reilly smearing. :)

Then take it up with them.

Then you take it up with those who are calling Michael Moore a "documentarian".

Originally Posted by Frogger
It appears that our two leftist are more interested in smearing O'Reilly than sticking to the topic of commentators being propagandists.

Guilty as charged. I'm always up for a little O'Reilly smearing.

I don't want to "smear" him. I just want to tell people what he does and demonstrate what sort of person he really is.

Give O'Reilly free reign, provide people the facts about his actions and words, and he will do the job of "smearing" himself, better than anyone else ever could.

Like so many staunch rightwingers, he is a fucking hypocrite of unimaginable proportions.

While you, Frogger, are staunchly dedicated to defending O'Reilly (no appear, in this case).

Why am I not surprised?

Does it not occur to you that O'Reilly NEVER would have settled the case out of court if he was innocent of the charges?

:rolleyes:

Just shows how wrong you can be, Fran. I can't stand O'Reilly. I think he is a loudmouthed, pompous ass. I no longer watch or listen to any of the so called poltical pundits. I get my news from the three newspapers I read daily plus the five or six newspapers I read on the internet daily. ALL political pundits are propagandists in my opinion.


I am not defending O'Reilly but rather pointing out how a word like appears was left out of the post of both Freethinker and Sedan. That llittle word makes a world of difference.

I ask again:


Does it not occur to you that O'Reilly NEVER would have settled the case out of court if he was innocent of the charges?

Does it not occur to you that O'Reilly NEVER would have settled the case out of court if he was innocent of the charges?It's nice to hear you abandon the left here to take up the more common sense position.

And refreshing.

falafellollerz!!

I am not defending O'Reilly ...

Yes. You are. Staunchly.

......but rather pointing out how a word like appears was left out of the post of both Freethinker and Sedan. That llittle word makes a world of difference.

What a clueless person you are!

The word *appears* is mentioned one time.

And it does not strengthen your case, but the case against O'Reilly and his sexual harrassment.

I did not "leave it out" of anything I spoke of, as you dishonestly claim.

The words I spoke about O'Reilly having said (in a lewd manner) to his female producer have nothing to do with the word *appears* in the paragraph about the incident in question.

And even if it DID, when viewed in the context of the quoted commentary, it only serves to place O'Reilly in a MORE negative light than he was already in!!

Here is the mention........

""Based on the extensive quotations cited in the complaint, it appears a safe bet that Mackris, 33, recorded some of O'Reilly's more steamy soliloquies.""

...... the only mention of the word *appears*.

The article is saying that it *appears that*, ----iow , it seems an inescapable conclusion that--- **Andrea Mackris recorded some of O'Reilly's dirty talk** that he abused her with.

How the FUCK any sane human being thinks that that mention of the word **appears** in that sentence, in that particular context, in that particular paragraph, bolsters their defense of O'Reilly (and yes, despite your lies to the contrary, you are going to great lengths to defend this sexually harrassing scumbag) is beyond all comprehension.

I feel sorry for the students who had a reading-comprehension-impaired person like you for a teacher.

OK,already I get it.Somewhere along the line,you managed to
read.Not too done Goot,but passable.
Now,if only you could manage that same feat,when it comes to
interpretatiion.
You seem to have a Bug in yer reading Bonnet.

People read too much into Fox's "fair and balanced" saying...

I highly doubt as many people would watch their programming if it were "FOX NEWS: conservative news source!" ... just like if Ford were to say on their commercials "The Ford Taurus is the 4th best car on the market!"... Some people on here think it's some kind of conspiracy, you're overreacting. It's all about money. They want more people to watch their show. They don't want the audience to "control the masses".. they want the audience to make more money.. and that is the bottom line.

falafellollerz!!



The dear man wasn't even in danger of losing his job - this was a big scandal - and he still has this smug, self-righteous attitude - amazing.

Even though fox or him had to pay out big time - he's still their cash cow - that is even more amazing.

Even though fox or him had to pay out big time - he's still their cash cow - that is even more amazing.His ratings went up during the scandal -- as did Rush Limbaugh's when he mocked Michael J. Fox.

Human nature, I guess.

The dear man wasn't even in danger of losing his job - this was a big scandal - and he still has this smug, self-righteous attitude - amazing.


Bill O'Reilly or Bill Clinton?

:lolhit:

Bill O'Reilly or Bill Clinton?

:lolhit:

The thread is titled "Bill O'Reilly: Propaganda Pimp"

I can understand why you don't want to stay on topic though ;)

Actually I don't like either of these guys... just pointing out some of the hypocrisy that exists in some of these discussions.

I would have lost my job had I been either one of these slimeballs in a related position of authority (and yes, I am in that kind of position).

Laugh a little... life is short.

Actually I don't like either of these guys... just pointing out some of the hypocrisy that exists in some of these discussions.

I would have lost my job had I been either one of these slimeballs in a related position of authority (and yes, I am in that kind of position).

Laugh a little... life is short.

I love laughing - and the rare times I watch billo - he often makes me laugh too- that squabble he had with Geraldo regarding drunk driving - quite funny -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLPuGuaZTx8

Boy, that was a great reminder of what an asshole Geraldo is. Talk about a class A, completely misguided jag off....

With a name like Geraldo Miguel Rivera, it's no wonder he went to bat for a man whose last name was Ramos, yet impugned the motives of certain people who were pissed off that an illegal (with multiple arrests under his belt, no less) killed a young woman (who happened to be a citizen here) while driving under the influence. What the fuck is wrong with our government (or more importantly, what the fuck is wrong with people who aren't stomping his guts out)?

Actually I don't like either of these guys... just pointing out some of the hypocrisy that exists in some of these discussions.

I would have lost my job had I been either one of these slimeballs in a related position of authority (and yes, I am in that kind of position).

Laugh a little... life is short.

Well then,please write down on the nearest napkin,exactly WHO
you do like.
That's the problem,herein,as I cede it/
Few if any are willing to stick their neck out and just admit
Like MEN,who they like and respect.
Which just Proves,FEW MEN DO EXIST as posters hears.
I just Proved it.

I didn't have a napkin (real men use their sleeve anyways)... so I thought I would type it.

BTW... just a partial list (I assume you want politicians/political pundits)

As far as political pundits........................................... ... none really (I find them to be too polarizing and insincere)

Politicians..... Ronald Reagan, Joe Lieberman, Ralph Nader (didn't say I agree with them, respect(ed) though)

Current candidates.... the jury is still out. Democratic candidates are trying too hard to appease the hard left, Republicans are just floundering about. I do kind of like Ron Paul (no chance at winning anything though). I only wish we had a good Libertarian third party to pick from.

If you (or anyone "hears") expects me to defend a pundit, even IF I happen to agree with their viewpoint on a issue... you may be waiting a long time. I might agree with the issue, but never because of with the pundit who spun it.

Not sure I qualify as a "man" to ya fools, been married 26 years, have two grown kids, and I speak/write in English.

[QUOTE=OldPhart]I didn't have a napkin (real men use their sleeve anyways)... so I thought I would type it.

BTW... just a partial list (I assume you want politicians/political pundits)

As far as political pundits........................................... ... none really (I find them to be too polarizing and insincere)

Politicians..... Ronald Reagan, Joe Lieberman, Ralph Nader (didn't say I agree with them, respect(ed) though)

Current candidates.... the jury is still out. Democratic candidates are trying too hard to appease the hard left, Republicans are just floundering about. I do kind of like Ron Paul (no chance at winning anything though). I only wish we had a good Libertarian third party to pick from.

If you (or anyone "hears") expects me to defend a pundit, even IF I happen to agree with their viewpoint on a issue... you may be waiting a long time. I might agree with the issue, but never because of with the pundit who spun it.
************************************************** ***
That was a fine reply.It was briefish and to the point.
You didn't find it necessary to Parse and beat around the bush.
I like that.
Nor much of that around here.Just ad hominum and repeated displays
of whining and complaining and trying to make blather seem like a
gourmet delight.
I like straight talk.
If one can't just honestly admit the obvious,what is one to thiink
when the jigsaw puzzle gets really complicated.
That's the trouble with Dimocrats.They want to have it both ways.
They want to be liked and heard,but not honestly defend their
positions.I think it has a lot to do with the overall huge popularity of
Slick Willy.Some still have the mistaken idea'r that Clinton's political
savvy and charm was authentic.
I doubt even his Library Hot Tub,would entertain that bowl of jello !