Bill O'Reilly - I cant be the only one!

[AZKathy]

I like the show and agree with a lot of what he says. I have not watched much since we have gotten so busy with DD's softball, but when I can, I try and watch his show.

 

[Mugg Mann]

This is getting ridiculous. I could care less whether or not a tv personality is shagging every girl on the east coast. He makes valid points on his show, and his ego is entertaining. To me that is all that matters.

I disagree with him strongly on the rap issue, but overall I think he is a great American thinker.

We can at least agree that his ego is entertaining, although I classify watching the show for his ego in the same way as I classify driving by a bad auto accident. In other words, you know that someone just got hurt, that it was probably avoidable, and it happened because the main instigator of the wreck was careless, yet you still peek at it even though you're ashamed for doing so.

As to the valid points and "great American thinker" part, let me direct you to a site that has over 350 documented O'Reilly misstatements, falsehoods and contradictions just within the last 18 months. Many of you will want or attempt to immediately dismiss this as "fluff", but this particular "fluff" contains the actual clip of O'Reilly to insure that he is not taken out of context (as he likes to claim) and verifiable links to show where he is demonstrably wrong.

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/search_results?qstring=bill+o'reilly

For every point that O'Reilly gets right (on those rare occasions when either facts or his ego don't get in the way), there are seemingly 10 times when he does not. If I'm a major league manager and I have a hitter in the clean up spot who's batting .100, I take him out of the lineup or at the very least move him to another spot in the lineup where his weaknesses don't hurt the team as much. The fact that Fox news chooses to keep him in his lineup spot in prime time demonstrates what their priorities really are.

 

[sotoalf]

I disagree with him strongly on the rap issue, but overall I think he is a great American thinker.

No doubt his pithy prose and sparkling insights helped.

 

[jim and meesie]

On ABC's Good Morning America on 18 March 2003, referring to weapons of mass destruction, O'Reilly said "If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again."

I wish he was a man of his word but he obviously isn't, nor does he "stick to his guns" as evidenced by the above quote. He is a Bush apologist, and that could be one of the reasons why many of the right wing posters in this thread seemingly hold this particular adulterer in such high esteem.

OOOOH! Getting into dangerous waters aren't we throwing the "adulterer" bomb. If that criticism discredited anyone I think wewould have alot fewer democratic leaders! Haven't many (most) of the "darlings" of the liberal left gotten caught with their pants down one too many times. As I said earlier, sometimes I agree with him and sometimes he drives me crazy so I'm by no means an O'Reilly apologist. Just calling it as I see it!

 

[Mugg Mann]

OOOOH! Getting into dangerous waters aren't we throwing the "adulterer" bomb. If that criticism discredited anyone I think wewould have alot fewer democratic leaders! Haven't many (most) of the "darlings" of the liberal left gotten caught with their pants down one too many times. As I said earlier, sometimes I agree with him and sometimes he drives me crazy so I'm by no means an O'Reilly apologist. Just calling it as I see it!

Dangerous waters? Hardly. Regardless of political affiliation, when an adulterer starts preaching in public about moral values as often as O'Reilly does on his various media outlets, the results are often quite inadvertantly comical. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[yeartolate]

OOOOH! Getting into dangerous waters aren't we throwing the "adulterer" bomb. If that criticism discredited anyone I think wewould have alot fewer democratic leaders! Haven't many (most) of the "darlings" of the liberal left gotten caught with their pants down one too many times. As I said earlier, sometimes I agree with him and sometimes he drives me crazy so I'm by no means an O'Reilly apologist. Just calling it as I see it!

But O'Reilly has been preaching moral values and pointing fingers all the while. He (and you) should not be surprised when the fingers point back.

Kind of like when Rush Limbaugh was talking about the drug addicted scum (etc) and he turned out to be one of the same.

 

[Melrosgirl]

He did apologize! He was on the View and he apologized just as he said he would. So there! ~

 

[Mugg Mann]

He did apologize! He was on the View and he apologized just as he said he would. So there! ~

Yes he did...but his statement was in two parts; the first was that he would apologize, and the second was that he would not trust the Bush administration again. Can you truthfully say he has been faithful to the second part of his pledge in the last 2+ years since he made that statement?

 

[shortbun]

Along the same lines, O'Reilly has a chapter on Sex in his O'Reilly for Kids book. Irony at its finest.

I actually read that chapter because my FIL had the book. OMG, what a hypocrite!!! Imagine a sexual deviate thinking HE is qualified to advise CHILDREN about sex, what a piece of work. Evidence that MOST of what he says is just what Letterman said it was. O'Reilley has the moral character of mud, knows just what to say to suck you guys in and you follow him around like sheep. Whatever.

 

[shortbun]

He did apologize! He was on the View and he apologized just as he said he would. So there! ~

So that makes it all good? He's a chauvanist and a mysogenist. He spews hate in public every day just like I'm doing here right now. You think that's OK? How about if we choose to follow some positive role models, some people who are genuinely nice? Wouldn't THAT be fun?

 

[sotoalf]

I hate his show but talking dirty to a female employee doesn't make you a sexual deviant, a misogynist, or a chauvinist. It just means you're tacky. We all get so hot and bothered over sex.

 

[yeartolate]

I hate his show but talking dirty to a female employee doesn't make you a sexual deviant, a misogynist, or a chauvinist. It just means you're tacky. We all get so hot and bothered over sex.

Sorry, buddy, but in the workplace, his crap is treated differently than if he were just on a phone sex line. Sorry, but in the workplace sometimes an employee feels they can't say no and "play along" because they are afraid not to.


What is the old saying about not "pooping" where you eat?

 

[toto2]

I hate his show but talking dirty to a female employee doesn't make you a sexual deviant, a misogynist, or a chauvinist. It just means you're tacky. We all get so hot and bothered over sex.

it was not the talking , it was the harrassing part that is really , really bad , you know . I 've been known to talk dirty around woman , but I've never called them at there home , and suggest stuff this guy did ! Again , just imagine if it was a liberal who would have done this. Same with Limbaug and his illegal drugs. It was ignored: and these people preach moral value , and the moral superiority of the conservatives !

 

[Mugg Mann]

I hate his show but talking dirty to a female employee doesn't make you a sexual deviant, a misogynist, or a chauvinist. It just means you're tacky. We all get so hot and bothered over sex.

No, it doesn't make you a sexual deviant (although there are many people on the DIS who would disagree with that), a misogynist or a chauvinist, but talking dirty to a female employee about pleasuring yourself with an inanimate object while you're married to someone else does make you a hypocrite, especially when you continously blather on on one of your media outlets about morality, right?

 

[Olaf]

I do think it's a bit ironic that liberals get their knickers in a twist about news show commentator, when it didn't bother them in the least when their president did far worse in the oval office.

 

[jim and meesie]

Dangerous waters? Hardly. Regardless of political affiliation, when an adulterer starts preaching in public about moral values as often as O'Reilly does on his various media outlets, the results are often quite inadvertantly comical. Wouldn't you agree?

Agreed, how about Bill Clinton and the esteemed Edward M. Kennedy to name the most visible? Quite honestly they all belong in the same group. Fortunately I don't look to my politicians and political commentators for moral values and neither should anyone else.

 

[yeartolate]

I do think it's a bit ironic that liberals get their knickers in a twist about news show commentator, when it didn't bother them in the least when their president did far worse in the oval office.

#1 Clinton was called on it (for how many years?)

#2 Clinton never put himself out there as our moral compass where sex was concerned - there were multiple allegations of his sexcapades before we elected him the first time. And certainly by his re-election we pretty much knew of his extra marital antics.

#3 Why in heavens name do you assume liberals did not care that our President was philandering?????????????? It was a horrible message to send and a horrible thing to do to his family. But in the scheme of things, on other fronts, he was managing the country very well (obviously open for debate )

 

[jim and meesie]

But O'Reilly has been preaching moral values and pointing fingers all the while. He (and you) should not be surprised when the fingers point back.

Kind of like when Rush Limbaugh was talking about the drug addicted scum (etc) and he turned out to be one of the same.

Fortunately they don't provide my moral compass. The true hypocrisy is that we give some a pass and then vilify the one we don't agree with. We really do need to develop our own opinions and values and not accept carte blanche across the board what any politician, commentator or such spews. It drives me crazy that people feel they have to buy in to the entire platform of O'Reilly or the democratic party or a certain news source.

I don't even agree with or approve of everything that my husband, kids or family do, that doesn't mean I can't appreciate the good things that they do.

 

[eclectics]

#1 Clinton was called on it (for how many years?)

#2 Clinton never put himself out there as our moral compass where sex was concerned - there were multiple allegations of his sexcapades before we elected him the first time. And certainly by his re-election we pretty much knew of his extra marital antics.

#3 Why in heavens name do you assume liberals did not care that our President was philandering?????????????? It was a horrible message to send and a horrible thing to do to his family. But in the scheme of things, on other fronts, he was managing the country very well (obviously open for debate )

I'll take a surplus to a deficit anyday!...... Back to Billy Boy, as another poster said, as long as you take these guys for what they are, political and social commentators, nothing wrong with enjoying listening to someone who thinks as you do. When you begin tuning them in as a news source and start believing their "opinions" to be facts and the unprejudiced gospel truth, then you are in big trouble!

 

[jim and meesie]

#1 Clinton was called on it (for how many years?)

#2 Clinton never put himself out there as our moral compass where sex was concerned - there were multiple allegations of his sexcapades before we elected him the first time. And certainly by his re-election we pretty much knew of his extra marital antics.

#3 Why in heavens name do you assume liberals did not care that our President was philandering?????????????? It was a horrible message to send and a horrible thing to do to his family. But in the scheme of things, on other fronts, he was managing the country very well (obviously open for debate )

Sadly as the "LEADER" of the country his stupid actions affected alot more people than any political pundit. "In the scheme of things" he still did something very wrong to not only his family but the country. If our president shouldn't set a moral example for the country, I'm in the wrong place. My kids know who Bill Clinton is and what he did (they couldn't avoid it), many kids have never even heard of Bill O'Reilly (and very few know what he did).


I know it's an extreme example but "in the scheme of things" is kindof like "Mussolini was a bad man but he kept the trains running" (not really the quote but you get the idea).