moore on o'reilly
- Thread starter nefar559
- Start date
Yes, he does, but in the end, he gets the last word..he writes the "talking points", he decides how to characterize and judge every issue he comes into contact with. By the time you're done watching O'Reilly, you've heard a great deal more of "O'Reilly" than you have of anything else. And "O'Reillyism" tends to be very right-wing 90 percent of the time.
The fact that O'Reilly invites two people for a debate does not diminish the fact that he has pre-prepared facts, lists, and arbitrary numbers, and he will invite someone on the show who agrees with him. In effect; it's always 2 on 1 on "the Factor", and the two is usually "Bill and the conservative" against the "liberal" (though not every case or issue is clear cut left/right).
O'Reilly also relies heavily on right-wing media and a right-wing gestalt to make his points. ( He describes Lieberman as "middle left", when in fact Lieberman is a sad version of Republican Light. Lieberman is basically a Republican who supports abortion. He calls Bush "in touch with America", when Bush is decidedly right-wing on many, many issues....everything from corproate America, pollution, abortion, etc. O'Reilly operates from what he says is a centrist base, but in reality is right-wing. He relies often on Fox News coverage, which is in itself, right wing most of the time...yes, even the "Fox News briefs" and "You Decide 2004". In short, O'reilly is preaching from the pedestal of Republican land, no matter how much he denies it. )
What does Moore do? Present a bunch of facts, and his judgements on them. Moore is "obviously left-wing", making his facts and statements null and void. Whereas Bill O'Reilly is 95% right-wing? And the 5 percent makes him fair and balanced? And he has guests on his show who can debate him at a 2:1 disadvantage, making him infinitely on the high ground? I just don't buy that argument. A fact is a fact whether Moore presents it or O'Reilly presents it. Fahrenheit 9/11 was at times sad, funny, incredulous, and eye-opening...especially for some people who didn't know all of the dirt on Bush. Should everyone see F9/11? Yes. It shows the real impact of our Iraqi bombings...it shows all the dirt on Bush stealing the 2000 election, although I wish it would have been explained a little better, and it generally says a lot about Bush middle america doesn't/didn't know, including the fact that he went to his advisors days after 9/11 and said basically "find some dirt on Iraq, we're going to Iraq". Everything about Bush in the movie I already knew, but it was/is new to many people. So telling people to watch "I support Mr. President" O'Reilly and not watch F9/11 is partisan at best.
So they can go against O'Reilly, who lives in black-and-white, hardline O'Reilly world, and a guest supporting O'Reilly's position, where O'Reilly get's to make a final judgement at the end coloring the entire debate. "Well I think this is just a matter of ....". And the people who watch O'Reilly every night thinking he is "fair and balanced", thinking that he only puts forth gospel truth can't tell the diff.
Have you ever read any of his books? I suggest you start there. Moore was not rich before F9/11, and if he is now, so be it. He's done a greater service to America than some Basketball player, or some molesting priest. O'Reilly is driven by politics as much as Moore is. See this is why you're such a hard head tadou. Mix delusion with hypocrisy and, voila! you have a bowl of tadou stew. Bill O'Reilly has a view on the world. He thinks X is wrong and X is right. Michael Moore has a view on the world. He thinks X is wrong and X is right. They are doing the same exact fucking thing.
The fact that O'Reilly invites two people for a debate does not diminish the fact that he has pre-prepared facts, lists, and arbitrary numbers, and he will invite someone on the show who agrees with him. In effect; it's always 2 on 1 on "the Factor", and the two is usually "Bill and the conservative" against the "liberal" (though not every case or issue is clear cut left/right).
O'Reilly also relies heavily on right-wing media and a right-wing gestalt to make his points. ( He describes Lieberman as "middle left", when in fact Lieberman is a sad version of Republican Light. Lieberman is basically a Republican who supports abortion. He calls Bush "in touch with America", when Bush is decidedly right-wing on many, many issues....everything from corproate America, pollution, abortion, etc. O'Reilly operates from what he says is a centrist base, but in reality is right-wing. He relies often on Fox News coverage, which is in itself, right wing most of the time...yes, even the "Fox News briefs" and "You Decide 2004". In short, O'reilly is preaching from the pedestal of Republican land, no matter how much he denies it. )
What does Moore do? Present a bunch of facts, and his judgements on them. Moore is "obviously left-wing", making his facts and statements null and void. Whereas Bill O'Reilly is 95% right-wing? And the 5 percent makes him fair and balanced? And he has guests on his show who can debate him at a 2:1 disadvantage, making him infinitely on the high ground? I just don't buy that argument. A fact is a fact whether Moore presents it or O'Reilly presents it. Fahrenheit 9/11 was at times sad, funny, incredulous, and eye-opening...especially for some people who didn't know all of the dirt on Bush. Should everyone see F9/11? Yes. It shows the real impact of our Iraqi bombings...it shows all the dirt on Bush stealing the 2000 election, although I wish it would have been explained a little better, and it generally says a lot about Bush middle america doesn't/didn't know, including the fact that he went to his advisors days after 9/11 and said basically "find some dirt on Iraq, we're going to Iraq". Everything about Bush in the movie I already knew, but it was/is new to many people. So telling people to watch "I support Mr. President" O'Reilly and not watch F9/11 is partisan at best.
So they can go against O'Reilly, who lives in black-and-white, hardline O'Reilly world, and a guest supporting O'Reilly's position, where O'Reilly get's to make a final judgement at the end coloring the entire debate. "Well I think this is just a matter of ....". And the people who watch O'Reilly every night thinking he is "fair and balanced", thinking that he only puts forth gospel truth can't tell the diff.
Have you ever read any of his books? I suggest you start there. Moore was not rich before F9/11, and if he is now, so be it. He's done a greater service to America than some Basketball player, or some molesting priest. O'Reilly is driven by politics as much as Moore is. See this is why you're such a hard head tadou. Mix delusion with hypocrisy and, voila! you have a bowl of tadou stew. Bill O'Reilly has a view on the world. He thinks X is wrong and X is right. Michael Moore has a view on the world. He thinks X is wrong and X is right. They are doing the same exact fucking thing.
phil, you show your idiocy by backing the "exposing BFC" article, which is full of assumptions and half-truths. Exposing BFC has already been broken down as wrong...point by point...paragraph by paragraph. Resurrect that thread, please. Did you even watch BFC? I have a copy of it on my comp. After reading the Exposing BFC article I re-watched it and took note of all the points in question.
For example: The "edited" heston speech.
Exposing BFC: "Michael Moore said Heston said "cold dead hands" two days after columbine
BFC itself: "The NRA held a rally two days later"
Heston clip: "From my cold, dead hands"
Did Michael Moore say "two days later at a rally Heston said this"? No.
He cued a clip of the Heston rally..then he cued a clip of Heston saying the phrase which is known as the NRA calling card. "(They will only get my gun) from my cold, dead hands".
There is a difference between intellectual and factual credibility , and the credibility that comes when people like O'Reilly and the conservative media say "Yes, he is credible."
I go by the first...If you've such a major disagreement with the Moore/O'Reilly comparison, break down why. I'm here..it's Sunday...shit. lol
For example: The "edited" heston speech.
Exposing BFC: "Michael Moore said Heston said "cold dead hands" two days after columbine
BFC itself: "The NRA held a rally two days later"
Heston clip: "From my cold, dead hands"
Did Michael Moore say "two days later at a rally Heston said this"? No.
He cued a clip of the Heston rally..then he cued a clip of Heston saying the phrase which is known as the NRA calling card. "(They will only get my gun) from my cold, dead hands".
There is a difference between intellectual and factual credibility , and the credibility that comes when people like O'Reilly and the conservative media say "Yes, he is credible."
I go by the first...If you've such a major disagreement with the Moore/O'Reilly comparison, break down why. I'm here..it's Sunday...shit. lol
moore is a tool of the democrats, far. 9/11 was a good movie but it didnt answer any real questions or even ask any real questions for that matter. And how does o'rielly have credibility when a couple weeks ago he suggested bombing the 98% of iraqis who dont support the americans. Give me a fucking break
people talk to much, and say nothing...
how is moore a tool of the democrats? the dem had no input what so ever in the movie, and from what moore says, no dem will be true to that.
what real quesitons are you talking about? what quesitons went unanswer? what quesitons should he of ask?
do u even know the point of the movie?
I have a proposition for all you Anti-O'Reilly people. Lets all (or whoever is down) watch the show this Monday, and see what kinds of topics he covers, and positions he takes. Because last i checked, his show wasn't 100% President/Congress/State shit, it had a fair amount of REGULAR PEOPLE fighting REGULAR CAUSES. But, yes...lets see. At the end we can tally everything up, and see how "Right-wing" he REALLY IS.
One example....Canada returning the military deserters to America...how the FUCK is that a Left/Right issue? If you sign up for the army, left or right, you go to war when you get called up. There are just as many noble Democrat soldiers as there are Republican soldiers, and deserters like these make ALL soldiers look bad.
One example....Canada returning the military deserters to America...how the FUCK is that a Left/Right issue? If you sign up for the army, left or right, you go to war when you get called up. There are just as many noble Democrat soldiers as there are Republican soldiers, and deserters like these make ALL soldiers look bad.
Yes...regular people fighting regular conservative causes...hrmm. Yes, there is a good deal of non-political shit on his show. But is conservatism simply a congressional curiosity? Is it some purely governmental phenomenon? No..its a synergy that applies to pretty much anything and everything current events-related, just as liberalism is. You can have a conservative or Republican viewpoint on kick stands for bikes, or anything the fuck else for that matter.
See but this is saying that the Iraq war is the moral equivalent of World War 2 or some shit. No one besides the aging, dying neoconservatives in the Bush administration had any illusions about Iraq coming to attack us in some kind of "War of the Worlds" scenario. The Bush admin. actually contacted independent military advisors such as Tom Clancy, Mark Gere, and other experts with a few hypotheses of "Saddam attacks", like port sabotage and unmanned aerial vehicles dumping anthrax, etc. Their theories were called "science fiction" and often met with outright laughter...
If I signed up for the military, (which I thank myself for never doing...something I had always been wary of...) I for fuck sure would not want to go into Iraq and increase terrorism against the US worldwide. The Iraq war is not helping us, it is hurting us. I know this is a difficult concept for you tadou, to be able to disagree with Fox News, but it takes alot of gumption, kind of like learning to ride a bike. It hurts to think about...you're gonna fall down, but ya just gotta do it.
No one would have made a huge case of Afghanistan. It's interesting that Hamed Kharzai was an adviser for Unocal, but that's really nothing...big whoop, etc. Iraq was a useless war in which lives were wasted, U.S credibility was thrown out the window, and anti-US feelings around the world are now at an all-time high.
If I signed up for the military, and later got called in to invade England because president Bush said they had a Transmogrifying Poopoo Ray that could kill hundreds of thousands in the breadbasket states, you best fuckin believe I ain't showin up. Why? It's fucking bullshit, that's why. Exactly what Iraq was...fucking bullshit. Bush had Iraq in his sights days after 9/11, knowing they had absolutely nothing to do with it.
See but this is saying that the Iraq war is the moral equivalent of World War 2 or some shit. No one besides the aging, dying neoconservatives in the Bush administration had any illusions about Iraq coming to attack us in some kind of "War of the Worlds" scenario. The Bush admin. actually contacted independent military advisors such as Tom Clancy, Mark Gere, and other experts with a few hypotheses of "Saddam attacks", like port sabotage and unmanned aerial vehicles dumping anthrax, etc. Their theories were called "science fiction" and often met with outright laughter...
If I signed up for the military, (which I thank myself for never doing...something I had always been wary of...) I for fuck sure would not want to go into Iraq and increase terrorism against the US worldwide. The Iraq war is not helping us, it is hurting us. I know this is a difficult concept for you tadou, to be able to disagree with Fox News, but it takes alot of gumption, kind of like learning to ride a bike. It hurts to think about...you're gonna fall down, but ya just gotta do it.
No one would have made a huge case of Afghanistan. It's interesting that Hamed Kharzai was an adviser for Unocal, but that's really nothing...big whoop, etc. Iraq was a useless war in which lives were wasted, U.S credibility was thrown out the window, and anti-US feelings around the world are now at an all-time high.
If I signed up for the military, and later got called in to invade England because president Bush said they had a Transmogrifying Poopoo Ray that could kill hundreds of thousands in the breadbasket states, you best fuckin believe I ain't showin up. Why? It's fucking bullshit, that's why. Exactly what Iraq was...fucking bullshit. Bush had Iraq in his sights days after 9/11, knowing they had absolutely nothing to do with it.
he often give the opposing view the last word
Abortion-Against (Right Wing)
Death Penalty-Against (Not Right Wing)
Gay Adoption-For (Not Right Wing)
i think it is a bit lower than 90% i would personally say more like 60%-70%
and he supports
1. gun control
2. higher taxes
3. gay marriage
shit the only thing that he is conservative on is "the war on terror"
and so is America.
so therefore he is in touch with america. remember there are twice as many conservatives as there are liberals in just about every poll taken throughout america
Abortion-Against (Right Wing)
Death Penalty-Against (Not Right Wing)
Gay Adoption-For (Not Right Wing)
i think it is a bit lower than 90% i would personally say more like 60%-70%
and he supports
1. gun control
2. higher taxes
3. gay marriage
shit the only thing that he is conservative on is "the war on terror"
and so is America.
so therefore he is in touch with america. remember there are twice as many conservatives as there are liberals in just about every poll taken throughout america