Bill O'Reilly threatened a caller

[hipsterdufus]

And you listen to this Olberman fellow how often a week? You are one of his fifty listeners?
I didn't even know O'Reilly had a radio talk show. Best hurry along now. Mr. Dean is ringing the brainwash time chime again...

FYI - Hannity has a radio show too.:roll:

In the 25-54 age group, Countdown is up 55% since last year, while O'Reilly is down 21%. Overall Fox is down 13%.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/original/feb06vs05.pdf

 

[Blue Collar Joe]

FYI - Hannity has a radio show too.:roll:

In the 25-54 age group, Countdown is up 55% since last year, while O'Reilly is down 21%. Overall Fox is down 13%.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/original/feb06vs05.pdf

I knew Hannity has a radio show. As for the percentages, irrelevant. Who is number one? How long have they been there? Everything else is just spin on trying to close the gap.

 

[Cookie Parker]

GYsgt writes:

How many partisan slaves out there are whining about Bill O'Reilly's statement, but think that Iran has the soveriegn right to nuclear power despite their governments statements?

I think Iran has the sovereign right to nuclear power. I think if W is incharge and going around invading nations that don't threaten us and bombing nations and killing citizens, it might behoove most countries to build up their nuclear weaponry.

 

[cnredd]

-With a furrowed brow-
What guilt or innocence is in doubt? Is someone saying he didn't threaten a caller?

No...The question is whether or not the threat was warranted...I hate to tell you, but there are legitimate reasons people call police...The question here is "Was there a legitimate reason?"...I said we can't know until we find out what was not heard on the air...

But look at the very first post again...

"O'Reilly can dish it out, but he can't take it (and the person wasn't threatening him). If I were the caller, I would bring forth a complaint that O'Reilly threatened me."

See that?...A conclusion WAS made without knowing all of the evidence...NOBODY, at this time, knows if that's a true statement or not, but the original poster threw it out as fact...

That's usually what happens when people start threads with the main goal of attacking and smearing...facts get pushed aside...

 

[cnredd]

GYsgt writes:

How many partisan slaves out there are whining about Bill O'Reilly's statement, but think that Iran has the soveriegn right to nuclear power despite their governments statements?

I think Iran has the sovereign right to nuclear power. I think if W is incharge and going around invading nations that don't threaten us and bombing nations and killing citizens, it might behoove most countries to build up their nuclear weaponry.

Your three-eyed, one legged great-grandchildren will thank you for that position...

 

[Cookie Parker]

At least I'll be able to tell her I never voted for the idiot that set off the nuclear war in the world..:lol:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

GYsgt writes:

How many partisan slaves out there are whining about Bill O'Reilly's statement, but think that Iran has the soveriegn right to nuclear power despite their governments statements?

I think Iran has the sovereign right to nuclear power. I think if W is incharge and going around invading nations that don't threaten us and bombing nations and killing citizens, it might behoove most countries to build up their nuclear weaponry.

LOL, ya and then we can have nuclear winter. Seriously, do you even know where Iran is? I'm willing to bet that you couldn't even find it on a map let alone know of the thousand odd reasons why should not be allowed nuclear weapons.

 

[Cookie Parker]

LOL, ya and then we can have nuclear winter. Seriously, do you even know where Iran is? I'm willing to bet that you couldn't even find it on a map let alone know of the thousand odd reasons why should not be allowed nuclear weapons.

Well, how many countries in the region have nuclear weapons? Let's see, there's India, Pakistan, Israel...do you know what that means? Nuclear freeze.

Now, there's also China who claims to have 10 nuclear weapons pointed at the US.

I fail to see what the difference is in letting Iran have nuclear weapons when it's clearly not to our advantage to let Korea and China have them.

Explain your logic, if you don't mind.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

LOL, ya and then we can have nuclear winter. Seriously, do you even know where Iran is? I'm willing to bet that you couldn't even find it on a map let alone know of the thousand odd reasons why should not be allowed nuclear weapons.

Well, how many countries in the region have nuclear weapons? Let's see, there's India, Pakistan, Israel...do you know what that means? Nuclear freeze.

Now, there's also China who claims to have 10 nuclear weapons pointed at the US.

I fail to see what the difference is in letting Iran have nuclear weapons when it's clearly not to our advantage to let Korea and China have them.

Explain your logic, if you don't mind.

Only seconded by Al-Qaeda, Iran has been behind the most terrorist attacks which resulted in the most dead Americans than any other organization in the world. India, Pakistan, and Israel aren't threatening to wipe eachother off of the map, Iran on the other hand is. And the reason why you don't see the difference is because you're ignorant of the subject.

 

[cnredd]

LOL, ya and then we can have nuclear winter. Seriously, do you even know where Iran is? I'm willing to bet that you couldn't even find it on a map let alone know of the thousand odd reasons why should not be allowed nuclear weapons.

Well, how many countries in the region have nuclear weapons? Let's see, there's India, Pakistan, Israel...do you know what that means? Nuclear freeze.

Now, there's also China who claims to have 10 nuclear weapons pointed at the US.

I fail to see what the difference is in letting Iran have nuclear weapons when it's clearly not to our advantage to let Korea and China have them.

Explain your logic, if you don't mind.

Here's the only difference that matters...

Iran wants nukes for offensive purposes...not defensive ones...

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Here's the only difference that matters...

Iran wants nukes for offensive purposes...not defensive ones...

I think a more pertanent difference is the fact that Iran has already showed their willingness to support terrorist operations to kill Americans.

 

[cnredd]

I think a more pertanent difference is the fact that Iran has already showed their willingness to support terrorist operations to kill Americans.

Nope...That's a good one, but not the ultimate reason...

The countries who have nukes now do not want to use them...But will if they HAVE to...

Iran WANTS to use them whether they have to or not...

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Nope...That's a good one, but not the ultimate reason...

The countries who have nukes now do not want to use them...But will if they HAVE to...

Iran WANTS to use them whether they have to or not...

Ya but that's a judgement call and speculation albeit one which I happen to agree with, however, what is a proven quanifiable variable is the Iranians past history of already killing Americans and others through their support of terrorist organizations; such as, Hezballa.

 

[Stinger]

FYI - Hannity has a radio show too.:roll:

In the 25-54 age group, Countdown is up 55% since last year, while O'Reilly is down 21%. Overall Fox is down 13%.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/original/feb06vs05.pdf

And he still has 3 times as many viewers. But not unusual, how long has OReilly been on now? Heck Nancy Grace has more viewers than Obermann and twice the increase.

 

[BWG]

No...The question is whether or not the threat was warranted...I hate to tell you, but there are legitimate reasons people call police...The question here is "Was there a legitimate reason?"...I said we can't know until we find out what was not heard on the air...

But look at the very first post again...



See that?...A conclusion WAS made without knowing all of the evidence...NOBODY, at this time, knows if that's a true statement or not, but the original poster threw it out as fact...

That's usually what happens when people start threads with the main goal of attacking and smearing...facts get pushed aside...

Where are and who asked these questions in the first post?
"The question is whether or not the threat was warranted"
"The question here is "Was there a legitimate reason?"

Title of this thread:
Bill O'Reilly threatened a caller

Fact:
During O'Reilly's radio show on March 2, 2006, some guy called in and mentioned "Keith Olbermann." He was immediately cut off, and then O'Reilly proceeded to tell the guy that they had his phone number and would be turning it over to Fox security, who would then contact his local police and that he would receive a visit from them.

Conclusion:
Guilty of threatening a caller

Now if someone wants to argue if the threat was warranted or not is another matter, but the original statement "Bill O'Reilly threatened a caller" is true.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Where are and who asked these questions in the first post?
"The question is whether or not the threat was warranted"
"The question here is "Was there a legitimate reason?"

Title of this thread:
Bill O'Reilly threatened a caller

Fact:
During O'Reilly's radio show on March 2, 2006, some guy called in and mentioned "Keith Olbermann." He was immediately cut off, and then O'Reilly proceeded to tell the guy that they had his phone number and would be turning it over to Fox security, who would then contact his local police and that he would receive a visit from them.

Conclusion:
Guilty of threatening a caller

Now if someone wants to argue if the threat was warranted or not is another matter, but the original statement "Bill O'Reilly threatened a caller" is true.

You're making up your own facts here, the call was not immediatly cut off what the guy said was not aired using the time delay. You don't here what the caller actually said because it didn't get played.

 

[aps]

I don't doubt it at all, you just have to listen to it, his reaction to whatever was said but cut and E.D. Hills reaction to it. I think it is Obermann who is misleading the public due his obession with ORielly and the fact he thinks it's the only way he can even begin to THINK about coming close in the ratings.

:rofl if he was he wouldn't be where he's at.

Jerry Springer has excellent ratings. Just because someone has their own show doesn't make them great.

 

[aps]

But you have no problem insulting those who sit at your pedestal? Why do you think laying out such invectives proves your case? Let's see it has been explained to you how radio works and that tape delays are use, that blows the attempted attack on someone you hate so to even it out you throw out insults. Really high intellectual debate there.

Stinger, I am talking about Americans in general--not democrats, not repulicans--all Americans. And I'm not being partisan when I say that. Look at cults, look at schemes and how many people fall for that crap. People who are born-again Christians all talk the same. Have you ever noticed that? It's weird, and it gives me the creeps.

 

[aps]

aps, I am no bigt Oreilly fan......I think he is a self promoter...You do know that he is in the same time frame with Oberman and is blowing him out of the water in the ratings.....

Maybe a little sour grapes on Keith's part????

What time is O'Reilly on? I just don't see Keith being vindictive or jealous. Have you ever watched Olbermann's show? He is funny and silly, whereas O'Reilly is this angry a$$. Anyway, just based on his demeanor, I would not think he would show "sour grapes" on his show.

 

[aps]

LOL, no, not you aps, you're so easy it's painful, but I still respect you, you are obviously just all wet for Olberwoman.

Huh? I adore Olbermann, but I don't find him remotely sexually appealing. So tell me why are your facts more true than mine?

 

[aps]

And you listen to this Olberman fellow how often a week? You are one of his fifty listeners?

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

I didn't even know O'Reilly had a radio talk show. Best hurry along now. Mr. Dean is ringing the brainwash time chime again...

That was so funny, I forgot to laugh.

(I used to say that in elementary school! :lol

 

[aps]

Where are and who asked these questions in the first post?
"The question is whether or not the threat was warranted"
"The question here is "Was there a legitimate reason?"

Title of this thread:
Bill O'Reilly threatened a caller

Fact:
During O'Reilly's radio show on March 2, 2006, some guy called in and mentioned "Keith Olbermann." He was immediately cut off, and then O'Reilly proceeded to tell the guy that they had his phone number and would be turning it over to Fox security, who would then contact his local police and that he would receive a visit from them.

Conclusion:
Guilty of threatening a caller

Now if someone wants to argue if the threat was warranted or not is another matter, but the original statement "Bill O'Reilly threatened a caller" is true.

Thanks BWG. I know I can always count on your support. Don't worry about cnredd. If he can attack the way anyone posts, he will. There's a difference between moderating and dictating in how people title their threads, and what they should say and how they should say it. However, he is not aware of the difference. Click on his name and see how often he criticizes the way a poster posts.

 

[cnredd]

Thanks BWG. I know I can always count on your support. Don't worry about cnredd. If he can attack the way anyone posts, he will. There's a difference between moderating and dictating in how people title their threads, and what they say. However, he is not aware of the difference. Click on his name and see how often he criticizes the way a poster posts.

And when have I moderated anything you've ever said?...

And why the personal attack on me?...Completely uncalled for...

 

[aps]

And when have I moderated anything you've ever said?...

And why the personal attack on me?...Completely uncalled for...

You do this to me all the time, cnredd..all the time. I am a 38-year-old woman and your constant critiquing the way I post isn't going to change the way I post. I like to be controversial sometimes. What's the big deal? YOu are always, as I have said consistently, free to ignore me if my posting bugs you so much.

 

[Stinger]

Jerry Springer has excellent ratings. Just because someone has their own show doesn't make them great.

Depends on who you're comparing his ratings to, how does he do against Oprah or Dr. Phil who he competes against? He doesn't compete against OReilly on TV and he's totally failing on radio.