Bill OReilly

[timbo]

Bill is slick
hes a good looking guy
he likes the sound of his own voice
hes an educated New Yorker
Hes part of the Media elite
You can t knock him

But you also resent people in his position
Its like a guy at a meeting with a megaphone
he holds the megaphone
Hes got the power to influence the mass meeting
Sitting at home we are the masses
Its a one way communication
In the end its meaningless

Its amazing how the Americans worship Hollywood
They are proud of their film industry
Thet invented it after all
But in the end what is it
Its a piece of celluloid ie plastic ..... running thru a machine
Projecting coloured light onto a white screen
Its just another product of the 20th century
The 20th century which was the Plastic Age

Bill and all the other pundits can sit there
in front of their cameras in their ivory towers
and spout on forever and a day
Its mass media its a power trip
In the end we re all being conned

In this world you are either one of the elite
at the top of the pyramid
Or else you re up to your neck in all
the c...p there is around today

and just to cheer us up a gallon of
gasoline in UK is over $7.20

 

[shuamort]

Bill O'Reilly - Good Morning America - 3-18-03 "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, all right?"


Months later, after President Bush declared the end of combat operations in Iraq and still no weapons of mass destruction had been uncovered, O'Reilly started to regret those words. So he gave the White House an ultimatum to come clean about the WMDs "in the next few weeks." But when that deadline was about to expire, Bill offered a new expiration date, granting the President an additional five months. Five weeks later, when it became obvious that the administration had no intention of meeting O'Reilly's decree, Bill extended it another six months.

In effect, Bill kept hitting the snooze button on his WMD deadline to avoid (or at least delay) apologizing to the nation and declaring his mistrust for the Bush administration, two things he probably never had any intention of doing under any circumstances. But, in the end, it became unavoidable.


5 Jun 2003 On The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly declares: "Reasonable people are faced with two conclusions -- one, that the intelligence was wrong, or, two, that more time is needed to find the weapons. Talking Points just asks one thing from President Bush: an update on the situation in the next few weeks. That's a very reasonable request, and one the President must take seriously if he wants to advance the cause of the USA throughout the world. In the end, if the intelligence was faulty, some people have to be fired. If, God forbid, the intelligence was contrived, and I don't believe that, but if it is proven, then Congressional action must be taken." (deadline=1 Jul 2003)


11 Jun 2003 On The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly declares: "It is possible the President did lie, but most of the credible evidence points to wishful thinking on WMDs, rather than outright deception. By the way, the President must tell us his feelings on the guerrilla action in Iraq and the WMDs, or risk losing popularity... We the people deserve an extensive update from the President before he goes on summer vacation. This is not a partisan issue. This is a people issue. There are things we have the right to know about, and the President must tell us." (deadline=1 Aug 2003)


31 Jul 2003 On The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly declares: "We're confused about the WMDs. And Mr. Bush has an obligation to clear this up by the end of the year." (deadline=1 Jan 2003)


8 Oct 2003 During his appearance on the National Public Radio interview program Fresh Air, Bill O'Reilly declares: "Well, certainly the WMD situation is troubling, okay. All Americans should demand within the next nine months -- before the Presidential candidate, uh candidates, really swing in -- for an explanation of what exactly happened. Americans will accept mistakes if mistakes were made honestly, but it needs to be defined by the Bush administration why the intelligence was faulty. And, uh, you know, there is no spin on that. They have to do it." (deadline=1 Jul 2004)


10 Feb 2004 Still lacking any substantive explanations from the White House, Bill O'Reilly grudgingly apologizes on Good Morning America.
O'REILLY: Well, my analysis was wrong and I'm sorry. Absolutely, you know.
GIBSON: Camera's right there.
O'REILLY: Um, and I'm not pleased about it.
GIBSON: Camera's right there.
O'REILLY: Yeah, I just said it. What do you want me to do? Go over and kiss the camera?

 

[Deegan]

Bill O'Reilly - Good Morning America - 3-18-03 "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, all right?"


Months later, after President Bush declared the end of combat operations in Iraq and still no weapons of mass destruction had been uncovered, O'Reilly started to regret those words. So he gave the White House an ultimatum to come clean about the WMDs "in the next few weeks." But when that deadline was about to expire, Bill offered a new expiration date, granting the President an additional five months. Five weeks later, when it became obvious that the administration had no intention of meeting O'Reilly's decree, Bill extended it another six months.

In effect, Bill kept hitting the snooze button on his WMD deadline to avoid (or at least delay) apologizing to the nation and declaring his mistrust for the Bush administration, two things he probably never had any intention of doing under any circumstances. But, in the end, it became unavoidable.


5 Jun 2003 On The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly declares: "Reasonable people are faced with two conclusions -- one, that the intelligence was wrong, or, two, that more time is needed to find the weapons. Talking Points just asks one thing from President Bush: an update on the situation in the next few weeks. That's a very reasonable request, and one the President must take seriously if he wants to advance the cause of the USA throughout the world. In the end, if the intelligence was faulty, some people have to be fired. If, God forbid, the intelligence was contrived, and I don't believe that, but if it is proven, then Congressional action must be taken." (deadline=1 Jul 2003)


11 Jun 2003 On The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly declares: "It is possible the President did lie, but most of the credible evidence points to wishful thinking on WMDs, rather than outright deception. By the way, the President must tell us his feelings on the guerrilla action in Iraq and the WMDs, or risk losing popularity... We the people deserve an extensive update from the President before he goes on summer vacation. This is not a partisan issue. This is a people issue. There are things we have the right to know about, and the President must tell us." (deadline=1 Aug 2003)


31 Jul 2003 On The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly declares: "We're confused about the WMDs. And Mr. Bush has an obligation to clear this up by the end of the year." (deadline=1 Jan 2003)


8 Oct 2003 During his appearance on the National Public Radio interview program Fresh Air, Bill O'Reilly declares: "Well, certainly the WMD situation is troubling, okay. All Americans should demand within the next nine months -- before the Presidential candidate, uh candidates, really swing in -- for an explanation of what exactly happened. Americans will accept mistakes if mistakes were made honestly, but it needs to be defined by the Bush administration why the intelligence was faulty. And, uh, you know, there is no spin on that. They have to do it." (deadline=1 Jul 2004)


10 Feb 2004 Still lacking any substantive explanations from the White House, Bill O'Reilly grudgingly apologizes on Good Morning America.
O'REILLY: Well, my analysis was wrong and I'm sorry. Absolutely, you know.
GIBSON: Camera's right there.
O'REILLY: Um, and I'm not pleased about it.
GIBSON: Camera's right there.
O'REILLY: Yeah, I just said it. What do you want me to do? Go over and kiss the camera?

Sounds like a perfectly reasonable, honest, and humble guy to me. He kept his word, and reminded the president on numerous shows to explain the situation about WMD's. While I don't really think it's his place to have to apologize, he did step right in to it. Still, he has done what he said he would, and continues to be someone I trust to get to the bottom of the story. As for those who claim he is not intelligent, or could not debate with most of his guests.....he is a Harvard graduate, and a former teacher, and he has proved his worth with more then a few guests. I see this hatred as a case of sour grapes with a large majority of these critics, he has made short work of more then a few rambling idiots on the left, and I am sure that hurts some of your talking points.

 

[shuamort]

I see this hatred as a case of sour grapes with a large majority of these critics, he has made short work of more then a few rambling idiots on the left, and I am sure that hurts some of your talking points.

I had talking points?

 

[Deegan]

I had talking points?

Sorry, that was meant for the left in general, and for another poster before you. I am not suggesting anything about your leanings, as you just quoted a conversation, and was attempting to comment on that. I hope that jumbled response clears it up, lol.

 

[cnredd]

Sorry, that was meant for the left in general, and for another poster before you. I am not suggesting anything about your leanings, as you just quoted a conversation, and was attempting to comment on that. I hope that jumbled response clears it up, lol.

GIBSON: Camera's right there.
DEEGAN: Um, and I'm not pleased about it.
GIBSON: Camera's right there.
DEEGAN: Yeah, I just said it. What do you want me to do? Go over and kiss the camera?

 

[26 X World Champs]

Bill is great, while I don't always agree with him, and he can be very controlling while on air, he still makes more sense then most. People will always hate him for his smug attitude, but the guy has the right to be smug, he has accomplished some great things for Fox, and for himself of course.

You think so? Really? How about this mind boggling transcript from Bill just last week?

August 4, 2005 - Did the U.S. Lose Vietnam? Has Bill Lost His Mind?

Hearing Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter debate over Iraq is like listening to two medieval doctors argue about which is better, leeching patients or boring holes in their skulls to let the demons out.

Bill had Coulter on to debate with him about how the U.S. is faring in Iraq. Ann thinks the war is going swimmingly. Bill, citing two FOX News military analysts he’d had on his show the night before, wasn’t so sure.

COULTER: If things have been going worse why isn’t the elite Republican Guard massing outside Manhattan right now?

O’REILLY: Well, because we’re not in any danger of losing the war there, that’s not the danger. We’re not going to lose as long as we’re there and as long as we’re in South Vietnam we weren’t going to lose. That’s the biggest myth in the world that the USA …

COULTER: We did lose.

O’REILLY: … lost the war. We didn’t lose the war.

COULTER: Yeah, we kind of did. I think we did lose that one.

O’REILLY: I don’t. I disagree with you. But that’s a debate for another day.

COULTER: They’re living under communism, Bill.

Leave it to Bill to make Ann Coulter look sane.

Of course, while they disagreed on whether we actually lost in Vietnam, Ann and Bill both seemed to agree the blame for our failure to fully win goes to a lack of political will. To hear Coulter tell it, this came in the form of constant carping from the likes of Walter Cronkite.

Both should look up The Pentagon Papers or rent Errol Morris’ The Fog of War if they really think all we needed to do to win in Vietnam is stay longer. Whether any of that applies to the war in Iraq is another question entirely, but we’re unlikely to resolve it with these two loons cluttering our cable channels.

Source:http://www.sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com/index.html

The commentary in the quote is from a decidedly anti-O'Reilly website. The transcript is 100% accurate.

 

[Deegan]

You think so? Really? How about this mind boggling transcript from Bill just last week?

Source:http://www.sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com/index.html

The commentary in the quote is from a decidedly anti-O'Reilly website. The transcript is 100% accurate.

We didn't lose the war, we lost the liberal assault at home, any soldier that was there will tell you that. Well.....except those that were drawn in to the liberal machine once they landed on American soil, the rest were immediately spat upon, thus making their opinions irrelevant. It was well done, and well planned, not to mention perfectly illustrated, and masterminded on all media fronts. The fact is we had the North backed up to it's last throws, and it would have only taken a few more months to defeat them. We beat ourselves, which is the same as losing, but our brave men and women bare no responsibility in that loss, nor does our DOD, or the few that could still see the bigger picture.:roll:

Don't even try to turn this in to a Vietnam thread, as I am only answering a ridiculous statement that can't be left without a response from the soldiers that fought there.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Ok I think there is enough on this topic to let the people decide. However, I will just say this to those who dont think so highly of orielly, all you people are doing is fueling his fire and what makes him keep going. People like orielly feed off of your negativity and thats what makes him prosper. Its people like you who make small time journalists go big becuase you indirectly stir up the ruckus and he all the sudden becomes famous. So you are basically doing the opposite of what you want to happen.

I mean look what happened to Eminem the rap artist. He was a nobody, until everyone saw his behind in court one day and he sold like 6million records in a couple weeks. And this was all due to people who ranted and raved about what they thought was not right. Well I tell ya for not being right he sure got very rich. So I guess mabe we should all just keep our opinions to ourselves when it comes to things like these.

I mean lets face it whether or not oreilly is right or wrong is not going to make this world a any better place. We should be discussing more important things

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Bill O'Reilly is just a little White House bitch! Just like that punk-ass Hannity! I just heard O'Reilly today condoning torture. Saying he "...doesn't care about the terrorists at GITMO..." and that "...if he had his way he would have executed them a long time ago." Only problem is, since none of them have been brought to trial, or had due process of law, which is something this country is supposed to be all about, we don't know if they are terrorists at all. And we won't, unless they go thru the judicial process.

I hate it when he says "...most Americans would agree with me..." Now how the f___ does he know! Has he talked to over a 100,000,000 people? He's propaganda. He's just like the guys in Weimar, Germany. If I had my way, I'd give him 10 consecutive life terms.

He's paid to state his opinion..he's not a news broadcaster. He's suposed to say shocking things..thats what he's payed for lol. I like him...he whacks Bush on a few issues, he's whacked Clinton on a few issues, he's the only guy with big enough balls in the news buisiness to bash both sides.

 

[Stinger]

I recently got Fox News since I switched to satellite TV. Unfortunatly, I keep confusing it with The Comedy Channel, nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

Hmmmmm already you post is trivial

I almost went into convulsions when I first watched... my eyes were constantly rolling in the back of my head. Hannity, O'Reilly, Colmes et al are not reporters.

DUH! They are news commentators and anyalist. They don't claim to be reporters. Perhaps you should get alittle more informed before you make such statements

They're a bunch of windbags with an agenda.

Of course each has his own agenda, one is a conservative, one is a liberal and one is a libertarian/conservative. That is not a new fact, it is preceisly what thier shows are about. Now I can understand if you are used to a CNN all liberial all the time type show that this is quite different, but don't you think it better to have all points of view?

Frankly, besides the gore, I see little difference between Fox News and Al-Jezeera.

Then you see very little, they have some of the best reporters and some of the best commentators in the business.

I've been searching hard for a decent and fair right-leaning outlet without much luck.

Well if it is right-leaning it won't be fair just as left-leaning MSNBC is not fair. Fox is a balanced news source in it's reporting of the news and offers a balance commentary between all it's host and guest.

I listen to a local right-wing show every weekday morning, but the host is another neocon windbag who I'm getting sick of. Where can I find someone decent?

Since I doubt you are looking for I doubt you will find what you are claiming to want.

 

[SixStringHero]

To this day I'm really not too sure of O'Reilly's political leanings. Many liberal people claim he's a conservative, but I have also heard many conservatives call him a liberal. Why is there such a discrepancy? I always thought he was more of a moderate, and he's never mentioned party affiliation as far as I can tell.

O'Reilly seems to be one of the few talking heads who does in fact criticize both sides. I never heard any criticism of liberals or democrats from Franken or Randi Roads. I will admit I haven't watched or listened to his show in awhile, but he never struck me as a right winger such as Rush and Hannity.

 

[Middleground]

Hmmmmm already you post is trivial

I guess jokes are not your thing, eh.

DUH! They are news commentators and anyalist. They don't claim to be reporters. Perhaps you should get alittle more informed before you make such statements

Well aren't you a sweetheart. Well thanks for that clarification, Stringer. No need to get all pissy.

Of course each has his own agenda, one is a conservative, one is a liberal and one is a libertarian/conservative. That is not a new fact, it is preceisly what thier shows are about. Now I can understand if you are used to a CNN all liberial all the time type show that this is quite different, but don't you think it better to have all points of view?

Well I would venture to guess that Hannity is the conservative, but who are the others? BTW, does Colmes ever talk, or is he always Hannity's bitch? I think they are the makings of a knee-slappin' sitcom. How 'bout "Windbag and the Mute, LOL?"

BTW, I never watch CNN. Thaks for the heads-up, though.

Then you see very little, they have some of the best reporters and some of the best commentators in the business.

LOL. Okay, fine, it's an opinion you're entitled to. As for myself, when someone makes such a statement about Fox News, I can't help but think this person is misguided and misinformed. Also, since there are so many commentators on Fox, would you say that perhaps it's not news? Because it's reporters that report the news, and not commentators, right?

Well if it is right-leaning it won't be fair just as left-leaning MSNBC is not fair. Fox is a balanced news source in it's reporting of the news and offers a balance commentary between all it's host and guest.

You would of convinced me, but you didn't end your statement with "Fair and Balanced." That would of been the "brainwash" I needed.

Since I doubt you are looking for I doubt you will find what you are claiming to want.

Huh? Not sure what the hell you mean, but based-on what you quoted from my previous post, I'll take a stab. Need to work on that syntax, my friend.

I'm just looking for a right-leaning commentator that discusses important issues. One that asks important questions and does not spend half his/her time whining about lib'rels. Vice versa.

BTW, I think that Bill Moyers was the best in the business. It's such a shame that he was forced to leave PBS.

 

[freethought6t9]

Despite what some may say, O Reilly claims to be an objective JOURNALIST. He claims to be an independent yet he was a member of the republican party. When confronted with this information he claimed he didn't tick any perty affiliation and there was no box for an independent. However when the Washington Post (it may have been another paper, can't remember rightly) dug up his registration card, there was a box for those who did not wish to affiliate themselves with a specific party AND the republican box had a big fat cross on it.

I think the Jeremy Glick interview is perhaps one of O Reilly's more poignant interviews. Here's a transcript (sorry about the length):

O'REILLY: In the "Personal Stories" segment tonight, we were surprised to find out than an American who lost his father in the World Trade Center attack had signed an anti-war advertisement that accused the USA itself of terrorism. The offending passage read, "We too watched with shock the horrific events of September 11... we too mourned the thousands of innocent dead and shook our heads at the terrible scenes of carnage -- even as we recalled similar scenes in Baghdad, Panama City, and a generation ago, Vietnam." With us now is Jeremy Glick, whose father, Barry, was a Port Authority worker at the Trade Center. Mr. Glick is a co-author of the book "Another World is Possible." I'm surprised you signed this. You were the only one of all of the families who signed...

JEREMY GLICK: Well, actually, that's not true.

O'REILLY: Who signed the advertisement?

GLICK: Peaceful Tomorrow, which represents 9/11 families, were also involved.

O'REILLY: Hold it, hold it, hold it, Jeremy. You're the only one who signed this advertisement.

GLICK: As an individual.

O'REILLY: Yes, as -- with your name. You were the only one. I was surprised, and the reason I was surprised is that this ad equates the United States with the terrorists. And I was offended by that.

GLICK: Well, you say -- I remember earlier you said it was a moral equivalency, and it's actually a material equivalency. And just to back up for a second about your surprise, I'm actually shocked that you're surprised. If you think about it, our current president, who I feel and many feel is in this position illegitimately by neglecting the voices of Afro- Americans in the Florida coup, which, actually, somebody got impeached for during the Reconstruction period -- Our current president now inherited a legacy from his father and inherited a political legacy that's responsible for training militarily, economically, and situating geopolitically the parties involved in the alleged assassination and the murder of my father and countless of thousands of others. So I don't see why it's surprising...

O'REILLY: All right. Now let me stop you here. So...

GLICK: ... for you to think that I would come back and want to support...

O'REILLY: It is surprising, and I'll tell you why. I'll tell you why it's surprising.

GLICK: ... escalating...

O'REILLY: You are mouthing a far left position that is a marginal position in this society, which you're entitled to.

GLICK: It's marginal -- right.

O'REILLY: You're entitled to it, all right, but you're -- you see, even -- I'm sure your beliefs are sincere, but what upsets me is I don't think your father would be approving of this.

GLICK: Well, actually, my father thought that Bush's presidency was illegitimate.

O'REILLY: Maybe he did, but...

GLICK: I also didn't think that Bush...

O'REILLY: ... I don't think he'd be equating this country as a terrorist nation as you are.

GLICK: Well, I wasn't saying that it was necessarily like that.

O'REILLY: Yes, you are. You signed...

GLICK: What I'm saying is...

O'REILLY: ... this, and that absolutely said that.

GLICK: ... is that in -- six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government.

O'REILLY: All right. I don't want to...

GLICK: Maybe...

O'REILLY: I don't want to debate world politics with you.

GLICK: Well, why not? This is about world politics.

O'REILLY: Because, No. 1, I don't really care what you think.

GLICK: Well, OK.

O'REILLY: You're -- I want to...

GLICK: But you do care because you...

O'REILLY: No, no. Look...

GLICK: The reason why you care is because you evoke 9/11...

O'REILLY: Here's why I care.

GLICK: ... to rationalize...

O'REILLY: Here's why I care...

GLICK: Let me finish. You evoke 9/11 to rationalize everything from domestic plunder to imperialistic aggression worldwide.

O'REILLY: OK. That's a bunch...

GLICK: You evoke sympathy with the 9/11 families.

O'REILLY: That's a bunch of crap. I've done more for the 9/11 families by their own admission -- I've done more for them than you will ever hope to do.

GLICK: OK.

O'REILLY: So you keep your mouth shut when you sit here exploiting those people.

GLICK: Well, you're not representing me. You're not representing me.

O'REILLY: And I'd never represent you. You know why?

GLICK: Why?

O'REILLY: Because you have a warped view of this world and a warped view of this country.

GLICK: Well, explain that. Let me give you an example of a parallel...

O'REILLY: No, I'm not going to debate this with you, all right.

GLICK: Well, let me give you an example of parallel experience. On September 14...

O'REILLY: No, no. Here's -- here's the...

GLICK: On September 14...

O'REILLY: Here's the record.

GLICK: OK.

O'REILLY: All right. You didn't support the action against Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. You were against it, OK.

GLICK: Why would I want to brutalize and further punish the people in Afghanistan...

O'REILLY: Who killed your father!

GLICK: The people in Afghanistan...

O'REILLY: Who killed your father.

GLICK: ... didn't kill my father.

O'REILLY: Sure they did. The al Qaeda people were trained there.

GLICK: The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people?

O'REILLY: See, I'm more angry about it than you are!

GLICK: So what about George Bush?

O'REILLY: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: The director -- senior as director of the CIA.

O'REILLY: He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who were...

O'REILLY: Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this.

GLICK: Well, I hope she is.

O'REILLY: I hope your mother is not watching this because you -- that's it. I'm not going to say anymore.

GLICK: OK.

O'REILLY: In respect for your father...

GLICK: On September 14, do you want to know what I'm doing?

O'REILLY: Shut up. Shut up.

GLICK: Oh, please don't tell me to shut up.

O'REILLY: As respect -- as respect -- in respect for your father, who was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed unnecessarily by barbarians...

GLICK: By radical extremists who were trained by this government...

O'REILLY: Out of respect for him...

GLICK: ... not the people of America.

O'REILLY: ... I'm not going to...

GLICK: ... The people of the ruling class, the small minority.

O'REILLY: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of respect for your father. We will be back in a moment with more of THE FACTOR.

GLICK: That means we're done?

O'REILLY: We're done.

Then this happened right before the commercial break:

What you can not see here because it's a text transcript, is right after O'Reilly said "we're done" he made two motions with his hand. He (O'Reilly) waved at someone off camera as to say come here and get him (referring to Jeremy Glick) then he did a move with his thumb, he held his right thumb up and raised it up in a short little motion. It's as if he were hitch-hiking, like get him outta here. I am guessing he was telling someone on his staff or his bodyguard to throw Glick out of the studio. (you should really find the video of this, it's appalling, if Glick had agreed with O Reilly would he have been told to shut up and kicked out of the studio)

No Spin huh. I think the most telling is the fact that O Reilly only gets aggressive when Glick comes close to telling the 'folks' some nasty home truths that Bill doesn't want them to know. What further sickens me is the spin O Reilly gave the interview. As time went on Bill moved Glicks position further and further into the realms of insanity until about 6 -9 months later Glick had apparently accused Bush of planning and carrying out the attacks (directly responsible was the phrase O Lielly used).

In response to the Coulter interview a few weeks back, I found it hilarious, he was dtermined to give the audience the impression that there were fundamental differences between his and Coulters viewpoints when really they were debating semantics.