Your takes in Keith Oberman?:

[Trailer Park Casanova]

I used to listen to the late sportscaster Jim Healy. He was great in my book.
He used to dish-rag Keith Olberman almost every broadcast.
Just trampled on Olberman for years when Olberman was pre-politics and a sportscaster on one of the local LA stations.
I can no longer take Olberman serious at all on MSNBC because he because took such a nitely ass bone-ing from Healy.

[3 daytona`s]

I used to listen to the late sportscaster Jim Healy. He was great in my book.
He used to dish-rag Keith Oberman almost every broadcast.
Just trampled on Oberman for years when Oberman was pre-politics and a sportscaster on one of the local LA stations.
I can no longer take Oberman serious at all on MSNBC because he because took such a nitely ass bone-ing from Healy.
that he is funny. NOT!! I won`t listen to his political B.S.:(

[Boatcop]

Ditto. I listened to about 1 minute of his loony left rant on MSNBC one night.
Never again. I won't even watch him on Football. The guy's an idiot.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I don't like him either.

[eliminatedsprinter]

He was a lousy sports reporter and he is even worse on politics. The guy is just plain lame....

[never_fast_enuf]

Oberman is insane...absolutly a few fries short of a happy meal.

[Old Texan]

Typical liberal media wanna be. Couldn't handle sports so he thinks he actually has a relevant political view.
Very similar to Bill Maher in that he can't quite find a niche because he doesn't realize he's stupid.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Typical liberal media wanna be. Couldn't handle sports so he thinks he actually has a relevant political view.
Very similar to Bill Maher in that he can't quite find a niche because he doesn't realize he's stupid.
Maher and Oberman, aren't in the same league.
OooopPPPssssss. I forgot, Bill Maher makes fun of Republicans, which in itself makes him stupid. Nevermind.
I think Engineer Bill is rubbing off on you Tex

[Flyinbowtie]

Like so many people I see on television, I wonder why he continues to be there.

[Old Texan]

Maher and Oberman, aren't in the same league.
OooopPPPssssss. I forgot, Bill Maher makes fun of Republicans, which in itself makes him stupid. Nevermind.
I think Engineer Bill is rubbing off on you Tex
Same league of losers. Maher couldn't make it as an actor or doing regular standup, Olberman couldn't make it in the sports world. Both feel their need to try Liberal mudslinging to get attention and further lackluster careers.
Old "Boats N Blondes" is laughing it up as he's really got to you. Got him on the mind in every other post ain't ya.:devil: Can't shake that summation, eh? Someone mentioned ol' BnB hit close to home and it looks like he's got you lookin' over your shoulder......Hee-Hee:eek:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Same league of losers. Maher couldn't make it as an actor or doing regular standup, Olberman couldn't make it in the sports world. Both feel their need to try Liberal mudslinging to get attention and further lackluster careers.
Old "Boats N Blondes" is laughing it up as he's really got to you. Got him on the mind in every other post ain't ya.:devil: Can't shake that summation, eh? Someone mentioned ol' BnB hit close to home and it looks like he's got you lookin' over your shoulder......Hee-Hee:eek:
That was funny.

[Moneypitt]

Who?.....

[delemorte]

I love keith because he calls Bill O a moron. as he should be called.
Is he Left??? oh hell yes... too far let? maybe... it depends on the issue.
Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2KU02lsfH8

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I love keith because he calls Bill O a moron. as he should be called.
Is he Left??? oh hell yes... too far let? maybe... it depends on the issue.
Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2KU02lsfH8
The vid spelled it out clearly.

[eliminatedsprinter]

I love keith because he calls Bill O a moron. as he should be called.
Is he Left??? oh hell yes... too far let? maybe... it depends on the issue.
Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2KU02lsfH8
So a dorky, failed sportscaster, turned failing political pundit is cool just because he calls Bill O a moron???:idea: Rosie O. thinks he's one too, does that make her hot??:rolleyes: ;)

[delemorte]

So a dorky, failed sportscaster, turned failing political pundit is cool just because he calls Bill O a moron???:idea: Rosie O. thinks he's one too, does that make her hot??:rolleyes: ;)
No i just hate Bill O that much... He has gotten more left as the years have gone on and i watch him less and less but i still do watch on occasion. You have to understand that his program is not news. its an oppinion show. just like Bill or Hanity or Maer. They are all opnion peices.
If i want news i watch headline news or Cspan. or check the BBC.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

So a dorky, failed sportscaster, turned failing political pundit is cool just because he calls Bill O a moron???:idea: Rosie O. thinks he's one too, does that make her hot??:rolleyes: ;)
I think its good for all of us when, the Bill O, Rush, Oberman, Rosie, types get put in their place after making BS statements. All of these types think they are God's gift to the media.
I enjoy guys like Jon Stewart and Dennis Miller who put their opinions out in a comedic way.

[delemorte]

I think its good for all of us when, the Bill O, Rush, Oberman, Rosie, types get put in their place after making BS statements. All of these types think they are God's gift to the media.
I enjoy guys like Jon Stewart and Dennis Miller who put their opinions out in a comedic way.
QFT!!!

[ULTRA26 # 1]

QFT!!!
???

[Schiada76]

No i just hate Bill O that much... He has gotten more left as the years have gone on and i watch him less and less but i still do watch on occasion. You have to understand that his program is not news. its an oppinion show. just like Bill or Hanity or Maer. They are all opnion peices.
If i want news i watch headline news or Cspan. or check the BBC.
Really?
You think the most successful cable news/opinion show host is a moron? Do you know his history? Do you know which university's he has degrees from? Do you know about his tenure as a teacher?Do you have any retractions he's had to print or lies he's told? Or do you just hate him because al franken tells you too?
liberals are mindless scum

[delemorte]

Really?
You think the most successful cable news/opinion show host is a moron? Do you know his history? Do you know which university's he has degrees from? Do you know about his tenure as a teacher?Do you have any retractions he's had to print or lies he's told? Or do you just hate him because al franken tells you too?
liberals are mindless scum
First of all who are you calling "liberal mindless scum" do you know me? have you met me? have you even taken 3 seconds out of your life to talk to me to find out my standpoint on the major political issus? Hell no you just like to call names.
After 30 seconds of google here is nice list of some wrong shit Bill O has said. He does not print retractions cause he does not ever admit he is wrong. Staying the course even when you are wrong still means you are on the wrong course.
Besides, did you even watch the vid i posted where Bill called US Soldiers in WW2 war criminals and fox tried to cover it up? F that guy man.. keep reading.
This is long.
"The "Oh Really?" Factor
Bill O'Reilly spins facts and statistics
By Peter Hart
If it’s spin to back up your arguments with bogus facts and statistics, and to dismiss numbers that don’t fit in with your preconceptions, then Bill O’Reilly’s
Fox News Channel show isn’t, as he repeatedly claims, a "no-spin zone"-- it’s Spin City.
During an interview with National Organization for Women president Kim Gandy (O’Reilly Factor, 2/5/02), O’Reilly claimed that "58 percent of single-mom homes are on welfare." When Gandy questioned that figure, O’Reilly held firm: "You can’t say no, Miss Gandy. That’s the stat. You can’t just dismiss it. . . . It’s 58 percent. That’s what it is from the federal government."
But by the next broadcast (2/6/02), O’Reilly was revising his accounting: "At this point, we have this from Washington, and it’s bad. 52 percent of families receiving public assistance are headed by a single mother, 52 percent." Not only is that a different number, it’s the reverse of the statistic he offered the previous night-- not the percentage of households headed by single mothers that receive welfare, but the percentage of families receiving public assistance headed by single mothers. That’s a distinction that O’Reilly did not attempt to clarify; he seemed unapologetic about emphatically putting forward an inaccurate statistic the night before.
The following night (2/7/02), O’Reilly came up with more solid figures, but they bore no resemblance to his original numbers: About 14 percent of single mothers receive federal welfare benefits, he now said-- less than one-fourth of his earlier claim. (He suggested that food stamps ought to be considered a kind of welfare, but that only gets him to 33 percent-- still 25 percentage points short.) O’Reilly explained that "it’s really hard to get a stat to say how many single moms percentage-wise get government assistance," though he’d found it easy enough to pull one out of the air just three nights earlier.
Suspect certainty
There’s a valuable lesson here for Factor watchers: When O’Reilly is most certain, you should be most skeptical. On another show (2/26/01), O’Reilly explained to Florida state senator Kendrick Meek that, thanks to Gov. Jeb Bush’s "One Florida" program, 37 percent of students at Florida universities were black: "Thirty-seven percent. That’s much higher than the population, the black population, of Florida.
Bush is doing a good job for you guys and you’re vilifying him." When Meek challenged those numbers, O’Reilly insisted they were "dead on." Dead wrong is more like it: Total minority enrollment for the freshman class entering in 2000 was 37 percent (Florida Times-Union, 8/30/00)-- black enrollment was about 18 percent.
Sometimes a guest who sticks to his or her guns can keep O’Reilly’s audience from being misinformed. When the host claimed (5/8/01) that the United States "give[s] far and away more tax money to foreign countries than anyone else. . . . Nobody else even comes close to us," Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies was thankfully on hand to explain that U.S. contributions per capita were lower than those of any member of the European Union. "That’s not true," O’Reilly inaccurately responded. Actually, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, in 2000 the U.S. gave only 0.1 percent of its Gross National Income as official development aid-- less than Italy, the least generous EU nation. Denmark gave 10 times as much on a per capita basis. Even in real terms, Japan in 2000 gave away a third more aid, even though its economy was less than half as large.
O’Reilly rewrote diplomatic history during an interview with James Zogby of the Arab American Institute (4/2/02). After Zogby argued that Israeli settlements were an obstacle to peace between Israel and Palestine, O’Reilly countered that during the Camp David negotiations in July 2000, the offer made by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak "would have given 90 percent of those settlements back"-- an idea he credited to "what every single American expert who has seen that says." In fact, O’Reilly got the proportion of settlements Barak was prepared to give up almost backwards: He promised Israelis that any deal with the Palestinians would involve "80 percent of the settlers in settlement blocks under our sovereignty" (Jerusalem Post, 9/13/00). When Zogby pointed out O’Reilly’s error, the host said he would welcome any former diplomats who could prove him wrong: "I’ll put them on tomorrow," he said-- but didn’t.
O’Reilly frequently refuses to believe his guests-- even when they cite a source. When one Factor interviewee remarked (3/1/02) that "60 percent of all people will live in poverty for one year of their life," O’Reilly shot back: "Not in the United States. . . . No, that’s bogus. I mean, that’s a socialist stat. You can believe it if you want to, but it’s not true." When the guest explained that the number comes from research at Cornell University, O’Reilly shot back: "Well, what more do I have to say?"-- as if any information coming from an Ivy League institution had to be wrong.
O’Reilly can be quite fond of a statistic, however, when he thinks it makes a point for him. "Here’s the statistic that tells me American society and the system we have in place works for both blacks and whites," he told the NAACP’s Walter Fields (5/15/01). "Eighty percent, all right, 80 percent of what whites earn, blacks earn if they stay together in a committed relationship, whether it’s marriage or living together. So if a black man and woman are married and stay together, they earn 80 percent of what white couples earn. And the reason it isn’t 100 percent is because more blacks live in the south where the salaries are lower. That tells me that the American system, the capitalistic system works and is fair. Where it’s broken down—all right, you may disagree with that, but that stat is rock solid."
That stat-- which O’Reilly has brought up on at least three further occasions (3/25/02, 3/27/02, 4/3/02)-- is actually out of date; the latest census figures (Current Population Reports, 1999) show that black married couples make 87 percent of what white married couples do. But O’Reilly’s idea that blacks overall are poorer because they have chosen not to marry doesn’t hold water; black single mothers make only 65 percent of what white single mothers do, even though they have the same family structure. And the notion that living in the South explains blacks’ lower incomes is a fantasy; blacks in the South, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, actually make more money than blacks in the Northeast.
Even when O’Reilly has a source, he’s prone to distorting numbers. ABC’s John Stossel came on The O’Reilly Factor (1/26/01) to claim that $40,000 in government money is spent annually on anti-poverty programs for each poor family. The stat appears to derive from the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector, who deceptively includes expensive programs that go to non-poor families-- like Pell grants, reduced-price school lunches and Medicare-- in his tally. A few days later (1/29/01), O’Reilly was garbling the already misleading figure: "We’re paying $40,000 per person who [is] on government assistance now"--quadruple the amount of spending Stossel was claiming.
"This is personal"
O’Reilly’s got something against National Public Radio-- namely, they’re not interested in him. "This is personal, this is absolutely personal," he said on his January 7 show. "I’ve had two number-one best sellers. . . . Not one NPR invitation." He’s not one to take an offense lying down, so he lets them have it, attacking the network’s "left-wing point of view" (3/6/02): "I’ve never heard a right-wing person on NPR anywhere," he charges (1/7/02). "You never hear a pro-life person on NPR. You never hear an anti-global warming person on NPR. They don’t get on there."
Conservatives, of course, appear regularly on NPR, both in commentary (e.g., Weekly Standard’s David Brooks, Heritage Foundation’s Joe Loconte) and as sources in news stories. Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who as a global warming skeptic represents a tiny fraction of the scientific debate, was on NPR three times last year; the network quoted Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee 11 times in 2001.
You’d think O’Reilly would at least get right what people say about him. "Every time you write about me, you put a little pejorative adjective in front of my name," he remarked to a gathering of TV writers (St. Paul Pioneer Press, 1/28/02). "In the Boston Globe the other day, it was ‘the conservative hatchet man.’" He also complained on his show (1/14/02) about "the Boston Globe calling me a conservative hatchet man." In fact, what the Globe actually called O’Reilly (12/7/01) was "an attack dog on Fox’s The O’Reilly Factor." Perhaps what they should have called him is "unreliable."
SIDEBAR:
Terror and Ecstasy
On February 4, Ethan Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance questioned whether casual drug users were really funding terrorism, as O’Reilly seems to argue. When Nadelmann pointed out that marijuana and Ecstasy were not involved in Afghanistan, O’Reilly responded, "Well, Ecstasy is," adding that "most comes from Holland."
To Nadelmann’s retort-- "and are the Dutch involved in terrorism?"-- O’Reilly said, "No, but it’s not run by the Dutch, it’s run by Middle Eastern guys." When Nadelmann expressed incredulity, O’Reilly challenged him to a $100 wager, which the drug reform advocate accepted.
Later in the show, Nadelmann again asserted that the casual use of drugs like marijuana and Ecstasy has "no link to the terrorists." "You’re wrong about the Ecstasy," O’Reilly insisted. "You’ll send me the check, and I’ll be very happy. . . . It’s controlled by Middle Eastern people out of Holland, that’s where it comes in here from."
The following night (2/5/02), O’Reilly gloated that he had won the bet: "OK, here’s what the Office of the National Drug Control Policy says, and we quote, ‘Drug Enforcement Agency reporting demonstrates the involvement of Israeli criminal organizations in Ecstasy smuggling. Some of these individuals are of Russian and Georgian descent and have Middle Eastern ties.’"
O’Reilly seized on this mention of "Middle Eastern ties" to claim that federal drug officials backed up his claims. But the statement made no mention of Afghanistan or terrorism, the aspects of O’Reilly’s claim that Nadelmann had most taken issue with. Is O’Reilly really claiming that Ecstasy users are supporting terrorism by giving money to Israeli mobsters? More likely he’s just demonstrating once again that he’ll clutch at any straw to avoid admitting that he’s wrong. —P.H. "
"

[ULTRA26 # 1]

First of all who are you calling "liberal mindless scum" do you know me? have you met me? have you even taken 3 seconds out of your life to talk to me to find out my standpoint on the major political issus? Hell no you just like to call names.
You better get used to the Jr. High School name calling. Seems it's all this poster does. He has some sort of connection with the word scum. If your're not a Righty Tighty, you are scum. :) :)

[eliminatedsprinter]

Really?
You think the most successful cable news/opinion show host is a moron? Do you know his history? Do you know which university's he has degrees from? Do you know about his tenure as a teacher?Do you have any retractions he's had to print or lies he's told? Or do you just hate him because al franken tells you too?
liberals are mindless scum
I do. He is not my favorite (but I often do watch and listen to him) and I often feel he exaggerates and bases some of his ideas on emotion, rather than facts. However, he is unquestionably a huge success as a political commentator, even though he is nowhere near the level of a George Will or a Thomas Sowell in knowledge or insight.
P.S. His teaching tenure, at what he calls a tough school in Miami, is a joke. It was a short time in a cushy job (a catholic school that is very highly rated) and was about as far as one can get from a public school teaching job at a truley tough school. A college student who works for LA City Youth Services in the summers gets far more expierance dealing with disipline and problem kids than he has ever had. His also exaggerates a bit about playing "college football". He never played varsity NCAA football. He played non-varsity club football (punter) while he was in college.

[delemorte]

I do. He is not my favorite (but I often do watch and listen to him) and I often feel he exaggerates and bases some of his ideas on emotion, rather than facts. However, he is unquestionably a huge success as a political commentator, even though he is nowhere near the level of a George Will or a Thomas Sowell in knowledge or insight.
P.S. His teaching tenure, at what he calls a tough school in Miami, is a joke. It was a short time in a cushy job (a catholic school that is very highly rated) and was about as far as one can get from a public school teaching job at a truley tough school. A college student who works for LA City Youth Services in the summers gets far more expierance dealing with disipline and problem kids than he has ever had. His also exaggerates a bit about playing "college football". He never played varsity NCAA football. He played non-varsity club football (punter) while he was in college.
My issue with bill is not that he is a right wing fanatic. Its that he denies it and tries to pawn off his show as news. Call it what it is. His show is an opinion show and certainly not "no spin". Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and to those i disagree then soo much the better, thats what america is all about..
But for god sake dont say your fair and balanced and be completely right wing. Show me once where Keith said he was fair and balanced and been complerly left and i will make the same critisism about him as well.
Right or left too far is too much. All things in moderation especially politics and religion...

[eliminatedsprinter]

My issue with bill is not that he is a right wing fanatic. Its that he denies it and tries to pawn off his show as news. Call it what it is. His show is an opinion show and certainly not "no spin". Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and to those i disagree then soo much the better, thats what america is all about..
I realize he calls his show the "no spin zone".
However, if you watched him enough, you would know, that he never calls his show a "hard news" show and he often (very often actually) points out that he is a political analyist and a commentator, not an impartial journalist, and what he deals in is his opinion based on his interpretation of facts, so I really don't see where you get the above..
Whew, what a run on sentence.....:rolleyes: ;) I have to catch my breath just to read what I just wrote..:)

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I realize he calls his show the "no spin zone". However, if you watched him enough, you would know, that he never calls his show a "hard news" show and he often (very often actually) points out that he is a political analyist and a commentator, not an impartial journalist, and what he deals in is his opinion based on his interpretation of facts, so I really don't see where you get the above..
Actually, I have gotten the same impression from Bill O. with regard to his program being news related. I really depends on the show.

[delemorte]

I realize he calls his show the "no spin zone".
However, if you watched him enough, you would know, that he never calls his show a "hard news" show and he often (very often actually) points out that he is a political analyist and a commentator, not an impartial journalist, and what he deals in is his opinion based on his interpretation of facts, so I really don't see where you get the above..
Whew, what a run on sentence.....:rolleyes: ;) I have to catch my breath just to read what I just wrote..:)
But he is statinng facts as though they are the hard truth when in fact alot of what he quotes is wrong or misguided. Give me one hour and i bet you i could find at least 3 dozen examples of him using the wrong stats or making stuff up or just being plain wrong. And the issue is that when he is wrong he does not man up to say it.
ive seen keith make mistkes and on the nxt show or at lease the next show after he found out he makes an apology.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

But he is statinng facts as though they are the hard truth when in fact alot of what he quotes is wrong or misguided. Give me one hour and i bet you i could find at least 3 dozen examples of him using the wrong stats or making stuff up or just being plain wrong. And the issue is that when he is wrong he does not man up to say it.
ive seen keith make mistkes and on the nxt show or at lease the next show after he found out he makes an apology.
QFT!!!
QTF ???

[eliminatedsprinter]

First of all who are you calling "liberal mindless scum" do you know me? have you met me? have you even taken 3 seconds out of your life to talk to me to
"
Look closer, that is just his signature line....:D

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Look closer, that is just his signature line....:D
ES, on this one you are wrong. Schiada actually goes out of his way to end almost, I mean almost, all of his posts with something to do with liberals being scum. It's not part of his sig line.
Schiada's Sig line:
Signature
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.
Benjamin Franklin

[eliminatedsprinter]

ES, on this one you are wrong. Schiada actually goes out of his way to end almost, I mean almost, all of his posts with something to do with liberals being scum. It's not part of his sig line.
Schiada's Sig line:
Signature
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.
Benjamin Franklin
Wrong!!!??? MOI??????
What Blasphamy is this!!!:2purples:
Oh well...
He uses it like an additional sig line....
And if I was a lefty (rather than the "tighty righty" that I am) I wouldn't take it all personal and get my shorts in a wad. :rolleyes: ;)

[Schiada76]

My issue with bill is not that he is a right wing fanatic. Its that he denies it and tries to pawn off his show as news. Call it what it is. His show is an opinion show and certainly not "no spin". Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and to those i disagree then soo much the better, thats what america is all about..
But for god sake dont say your fair and balanced and be completely right wing. Show me once where Keith said he was fair and balanced and been complerly left and i will make the same critisism about him as well.
Right or left too far is too much. All things in moderation especially politics and religion...
He's far from right wing and if you ever actually watched the show you would know that. He regularly bashes the President, disapproves of Iraq and believes in MMGW fer fuccs sake.
BTW I regularly finish my posts with "liberals are SCUM" because they are, never directed at anyone personally but if you're a liberal, well you decide.:rolleyes: :D
Those little gotchas on O'reilly are pretty damn pathetic for a man that has been on FNN for 1 hour every night for what fifteen years? Did you even notice the dates? Yup they really prove he's a moron all right.
liberals are pathetic hypocritical SCUM
OOPS! Meant to quote the new guy with this reply, he must think I'm a moron too now.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

He's far from right wing and if you ever actually watched the show you would know that. He regularly bashes the President, disapproves of Iraq and believes in MMGW fer fuccs sake.
BTW I regularly finish my posts with "liberals are SCUM" because they are, never directed at anyone personally but if you're a liberal, well you decide.:rolleyes: :D
Those little gotchas on O'reilly are pretty damn pathetic for a man that has been on FNN for 1 hour every night for what fifteen years? Did you even notice the dates? Yup they really prove he's a moron all right.
liberals are pathetic hypocritical SCUM
OOPS! Meant to quote the new guy with this reply, he must think I'm a moron too now.
He regularly bashes the President, disapproves of Iraq and believes in MMGW fer fuccs sake.
That made me laugh. :D :D

[Schiada76]

He regularly bashes the President, disapproves of Iraq and believes in MMGW fer fuccs sake.
That made me laugh. :D :D
Understood, the truth does make you laugh.
liberals are SCUM

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Understood, the truth does make you laugh.
liberals are SCUM
It wasn't the truth but your ever so eloquent way of putting it
NeoClowns Equal Owl Sh*t

[Old Texan]

The endless number of "Political Opinion" programs on the radio and TV are in my opinion quite invigorating and get people thinking. I'd far rather these programs be watcched than say all the idiot realism shows or the tripe being offered on MTV and the Hollywood gossip venues.
Even the opposing views spark debate and force many to seek knowledge that gives a better understanding and perspective of the real world. It matters little who you like or agree with, what really matters is people are involved enough to understand how the real world and real world issues work. Debating Global warming or the Iraq War or how elections are run will in the long run make us a far stronger, knowledgable society than knowing what brand of purse Paris Hilton carries or how many episodes of "Days of our Lives" featured some 2 bit actress.
I was rather proud the other day when I came into the house and found my 15 year old Granddaughter watching a news channel I'd left on rather than MTV. When I went to change the channel to sports, she stopped me because she was caught up in a show talking about current world issues that many of us wouldn't figure a 15 year girl to an have interest in. She also knows who Sean Hannity and Bill O are and has her own opinions on what they talk about.
And she knows that much of what they say is pure opinion and she must decide if they are right or wrong. I'd far rather she watches this type of offering and gains the ability to decide for herself than have politcally corrected edits of text books shoved in front of her. This is how the future leaders of our country will be prepared, by personal decisons based on their own initiative.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

The endless number of "Political Opinion" programs on the radio and TV are in my opinion quite invigorating and get people thinking. I'd far rather these programs be watcched than say all the idiot realism shows or the tripe being offered on MTV and the Hollywood gossip venues.
Even the opposing views spark debate and force many to seek knowledge that gives a better understanding and perspective of the real world. It matters little who you like or agree with, what really matters is people are involved enough to understand how the real world and real world issues work. Debating Global warming or the Iraq War or how elections are run will in the long run make us a far stronger, knowledgable society than knowing what brand of purse Paris Hilton carries or how many episodes of "Days of our Lives" featured some 2 bit actress.
I was rather proud the other day when I came into the house and found my 15 year old Granddaughter watching a news channel I'd left on rather than MTV. When I went to change the channel to sports, she stopped me because she was caught up in a show talking about current world issues that many of us wouldn't figure a 15 year girl to an have interest in. She also knows who Sean Hannity and Bill O are and has her own opinions on what they talk about.
And she knows that much of what they say is pure opinion and she must decide if they are right or wrong. I'd far rather she watches this type of offering and gains the ability to decide for herself than have politcally corrected edits of text books shoved in front of her. This is how the future leaders of our country will be prepared, by personal decisons based on their own initiative.
I feel the same way.
PS. I am still hoping for my first Grandchild. Probably still a couple of years away.

[Schiada76]

It wasn't the truth but your ever so eloquent way of putting it
NeoClowns Equal Owl Sh*t
No, you're wrong as usual. Those are facts, I watch O'Reilly so I know what he says. You listen to Al Franken and operate by FEELINGS. Today on his radio show he was defending the Hildebeast. I used to think you were ignorant, I was wrong you're stupid.:rolleyes: :D
liberals are ALL filthy lying scum

[ULTRA26 # 1]

No, you're wrong as usual. Those are facts, I watch O'Reilly so I know what he says. You listen to Al Franken and operate by FEELINGS. Today on his radio show he was defending the Hildebeast. I used to think you were ignorant, I was wrong you're stupid.:rolleyes: :D
liberals are ALL filthy lying scum
How about this. I have watched O'Reilly on many occasions, and have never, and I mean never, heard one political word out of Al Franken.
Seems you are the one who is lying.
I used to think you were ignorant, I was wrong you're stupid.
What does this comment have to do with the subject at hand?

[Schiada76]

How about this. I have watched O'Reilly on many occasions, and have never, and I mean never, heard one political word out of Al Franken.
Seems you are one who is lying.
Nope, I'm right. I don't need to lie like the scum bag left in this country.

[delemorte]

QTF ???
QFT is Quoted For Truth!!!
Man those exampels i kicked out are just after 30 seconds of looking for examples, if you had read the rest of my post you woudl have seen that.
That moron (Bill O, as i dont know this Neo Con well enough to call him names) misquotes and lies on almost every show. if you watched something other than fox news you would know this. dont take his word on it, look it up. or watch keith as he calls him out almost nightly and provides the sources for all his rebutles. Besides time has no relevence in this conversation. Once a liar always a liar.
Either way man watch Bill all you want i dont care about him, i just like watching him being made an ass. however if Fox is your only source for news then i feel sorry for you as you cant live life by believing the goverments talking points. left or right all politicians lie and the media scum bags that are in their pockets lie for them.. they all lie.. FOOK them all...

[delemorte]

Here are a few more for ya though. I coudl keep this up all day. This is just the short list of 04.
O'Reilly falsely claimed Bush didn't oppose 9-11 Commission. O'Reilly defended President George W. Bush from a Kerry-Edwards '04 TV ad highlighting Bush's opposition to creation of the 9-11 Commission by denying that Bush had ever opposed the commission. In fact, Bush did oppose the creation of the 9-11 Commission. (10/21/04)
O'Reilly falsely claimed Iraq had ricin. O'Reilly responded to a caller to his radio show by defending the Iraq war: "They did have ricin up there in the north -- so why are you discounting that so much?" In fact, the Duelfer report (the final report of the Iraqi Survey Group, led by Charles A. Duelfer, which conducted the search for weapons in Iraq following the U.S.-led invasion) indicates that Iraq did not have ricin. (10/19/04)
O'Reilly repeated discredited claims on Iraq-Al Qaeda link. O'Reilly interrupted a former Clinton administration official who tried to correct the record on O'Reilly's claim that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi constitutes a direct link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. He also allowed a conservative guest to repeat without challenge other discredited claims about Iraq's supposed involvement in terrorism -- claims O'Reilly has himself cited in the past. (9/27/04)
O'Reilly fabricated "Paris Business Review" as source for success of French boycott. O'Reilly falsely claimed "they've lost billions of dollars in France according to 'The Paris Business Review'" due to an American boycott he advocated of French imports. Media Matters for America found no evidence of a publication named "The Paris Business Review." (4/27/04)
O'Reilly cited phony stats to argue that taxes on rich are excessive. O'Reilly tried to "blow off" the argument that wealthy Americans ought to pay more taxes by citing phony statistics about the tax burden the rich currently bear. (6/30/04)
O'Reilly confused on elementary economics. O'Reilly told a caller on his radio show, "We [the United States] have a trade deficit with everybody, because everybody wants our stuff, and we're not wild about snails" -- indicating that he doesn't know the definition of "trade deficit" and implying that the United States runs a trade surplus with France. In fact, in the first four months of 2004, the United States had a $3 billion trade deficit with France. (6/10/04)
O'Reilly doctored quotation to suggest Soros wished his own father dead. During his smear campaign against progressive financier, philanthropist, and political activist George Soros, O'Reilly doctored a 1995 quotation by Soros to make it seem as if Soros wished his own father dead. (6/1/04)
O'Reilly questioned if Kennedy would show up to Democratic convention ... as Kennedy spoke behind him. O'Reilly teased an upcoming segment of The O'Reilly Factor, broadcast live from the Democratic National Convention, by saying of convention speaker Senator Edward Kennedy: "When we come back, we'll let you listen to Ted Kennedy for a while, if he shows up." In fact, Kennedy had already shown up and had been speaking for several minutes, as O'Reilly need only have turned around to see. (7/27/04)
O'Reilly disparaged Democrats with trifecta of voter falsehoods. In a discussion about what went wrong for Democrats in the November 2 election, O'Reilly claimed that Democrats "lost votes from four years ago"; that "18- to 24[-year-old]s didn't go" to the polls; and that "[c]ommitted Republicans didn't carry the day for the president; independents did." All three claims are false. (11/4/04)
O'Reilly on the radio: Three lies, one broadcast. Lie No. 1: Bush tax cuts didn't create the budget deficit. Lie No. 2: "Socialistic" French, Germans, and Canadian governments tax at 80 percent. Lie No. 3: Canadian, British, and French media are "government-controlled," but Italian media is free. (7/7/04)

[delemorte]

this is to counter your claim in your first post about being the number one show or however you put it.
1-1-06 -- O'Reilly is always talking about how his ratings are going through the roof and thanking his viewers for increasing his ratings. But it'a all a lie, his ratings have not gone up at all in the last year. He claims his show gets 6 million viewers a night, which is an outright LIE. At no time in the history of the show has he averaged 6 million viewers a night, ever.
In October of 2004 the O'Reilly Factor was averaging 3.1 million viewers a month and a 2.8 rating, that was his highest rated month since 0ctober of 2004. In October of 2005 the Factor averaged 2.6 million viewers a month and a 2.3 rating. But in November of 2005 the O'Reilly Factor only averaged 2.5 million viewers a month and a 2.2 rating. So his ratings have actually went down over the last year.
His yearly rating is down to a 2.2, with an average total viewer number of 2,490,000 a night. But if you watch the factor you would think O'Reilly's ratings have gone up, when in fact, they have went down.
This is the yearly average for the O'Reilly Factor from 12-27-04 to 12-25-05.
Rating - 2.2 -- Total Viewers - 2,490,000 -- 25 to 54 Demographic - 564,000
Yearly Cable News Shows Ratings: www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/original/2005ranker.pdf
__________________________________________________ ______________
Billy O'Reilly Caught Lying About no Country Claiming The Iraq war Was Illegal
Once again O'Reilly is caught lying to the American people. Here is what he said last night (12-12-05) in an interview with a Democratic State Senator from NY about the Iraq war being illegal.
O'REILLY: When you say that Bush went to war illegally into Iraq.
DUANE: Yes.
O'REILLY: You are wrong, because the United Nations mandate said that the first Gulf War, cease-fire must be upheld or the United States and all the other coalition partners could go back in. You certainly know that. You don't sign a cease-fire and allow the enemy to disobey it. Come on.
DUANE: And yet the vast majority of the coalition partners did not.
O'REILLY: Doesn't mean it was illegal.
DUANE: Well, they felt it was illegal under international law.
O'REILLY: They did not feel it was illegal. There isn't one country in this world.
O'REILLY: You shouldn't be saying things that aren't true. It was not an illegal invasion to remove Saddam.
Those are all lies from Billy O'Reilly, not one thing he said is true. Spanish, Canadian, Australian, and a lot of American legal experts say the Iraq war is illegal. Just do a google search on "Iraq War Illegal" and you will see that almost every international law expert agrees that the war in Iraq is illegal. You could disagree with the experts, but to state as fact that no country says the war is illegal and claim it's a fact is dishonest and a lie.
The US and British governments have claimed that their invasion is justified by UN Security Council Resolution 1441 (So Does Billy O'Reilly) and two old Security Council resolutions authorizing force to end the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait and setting out the terms of the cease-fire after the Persian Gulf War of 1991. The 1991 resolution required Iraq to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction.
John Currie, a University of Ottawa law school professor, described these arguments as fatally flawed. The 1991 resolution stated that the Security Council “decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution.” The Security Council—not the United States, Britain or other council members acting on their own—must decide on further use of force, Professor Currie said.
Phyllis Bennis from the Institute for Policy Studies said this:
Iraq signed the ceasefire resolution (687) with the United Nations, not with the U.S., and only the UN Security Council can determine whether it is complying and what to do if it is not. The U.S. Congress does not have the right to determine that any UN Security Council resolutions will be enforced by the use of force, regardless of any finding that violation of the resolution may effect the national security interests of the United States. Further, several of the UN resolutions referenced (including 688) were not taken under Chapter VII and have no legal basis for military enforcement.
Bush promised to have the 2nd UN resolution vote that would have authorized the use of force, he said there will be a vote and let the chips fall where they may, no such vote ever happened, and here is why. The Bush and Blair governments abandoned their efforts to secure a new UN resolution to authorize the use of force, after failing to win any more than four out of fifteen votes. They also faced vetoes by France and Russia and public opposition by Germany and several other members of the council.
Billy never mentions any of that, he cherry picked parts of the UN resolution that makes his argument sound correct. Yet he ignores the parts that prove he is a liar, and wrong about the claims that nobody says the war is illegal.
__________________________________________________ _______________
all day you could find stuff this moron says. but dont take my word for it.. check up on bill facts... and good luck to him... Long Live Olberman :)
JK. im out guys have a good one.

[Old Texan]

In the words of Denny Crane, legendary attorney on "Boston Legal":
"Any publicity is good publicity. Just as long as they are talking about you....."
On this premise alone, Bill O has met his goal. Delemorte's obsession and lengthy downgrading posts of Bill O are going to send more viewers to the O'Reily Factor just to see what the bitching is about.
Congrats D, you've helped raise Bill's ratings.......:devil:
By the way, what the hell is a "delemorte"?????? :confused:

[Schiada76]

[QUOTE=delemorte;2885741]this is to counter your claim in your first post about being the number one show or however you put it.
It was "most successful. Which he is by far.
At a quck glance already picked up a few lies in your weak cut and paste. Did you get them from that loser olbermans "i hate O'Reilly blog".:rolleyes:
liberals are pathetic SCUM
__________________________________________________ _______________

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Nope, I'm right. I don't need to lie like the scum bag left in this country.
There is no truth to me listening to or watching Al Franken. I would call that a lie.
NeoClowns equal Owl Shit
QFT is Quoted For Truth!!!
Man those exampels i kicked out are just after 30 seconds of looking for examples, if you had read the rest of my post you woudl have seen that.
That moron (Bill O, as i dont know this Neo Con well enough to call him names) misquotes and lies on almost every show. if you watched something other than fox news you would know this. dont take his word on it, look it up. or watch keith as he calls him out almost nightly and provides the sources for all his rebutles. Besides time has no relevence in this conversation. Once a liar always a liar.
Either way man watch Bill all you want i dont care about him, i just like watching him being made an ass. however if Fox is your only source for news then i feel sorry for you as you cant live life by believing the goverments talking points. left or right all politicians lie and the media scum bags that are in their pockets lie for them.. they all lie.. FOOK them all...
If this post is directed to me, I do watch news other than Fox, and by most accounts of the folks here, I am known as Ultra Leftie. They make me laugh, as I observe all sides and try to draw educated conclusions from all points of view, and all of the guys here know this. I'm not even close to a righty tighty neocon. :D
Thanks for the QFT info.

[Schiada76]

[QUOTE=ULTRA26 # 1;2886100]There is no truth to me listening to or watching Al Franken. I would call that a lie.
Not a lie, an insult you nitwit.:rolleyes:
liberals are traitors

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Not a lie, an insult you nitwit.:rolleyes:
liberals are traitors
Please tell us what insults have to do with the debate?

[Schiada76]

Insults have, since our countries inception, been a part of political debate.
Dueling was also.:D

[Schiada76]

Insults have, since our countries inception, been a part of political debate.
Dueling was also.:D

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Insults have, since our countries inception, been a part of political debate.
Prove it :D :D
It's almost Sushi time. Enjoy your weekend.

[Schiada76]

Prove it :D :D
It's almost Sushi time. Enjoy your weekend.
Ok, you slimey liberal limp wristed turd of a traitor I challenge you to flintlocks at twenty paces!:D
No Sushi, just work.:(