Why is this inappropriate? Followers of Jackson, Sharpton, et al, deserve to be called out for placing their devotion with charlatans. **
Cite for the proposition that suggesting the black community has demons of its own to exorcise is tantamount to complete absolution for dealing with the problems of the inner city? When has O’Reilly ever suggested this? Or is this yet another unwarranted assumption on your part?
I’m still curious as to what you think of the Moynihan Report. **
So he can’t suggest something that will be beneficial unless he also makes a proposal that will solve all the problems of the inner city in their entirety? :rolleyes:
I’m not a follower of O’Reilly. I’ve stated on these very board my general disdain for his show, his interminable cutting off of guests, his basic blowhardiness and general tendency towards asshattedness.
What I am doing is defending O’Reilly against some fairly spurious charges by Diogenes. I don’t have to be an O’Reilly fan to do that; I only need a basic sense of fair play. Regardless of O’Reilly’s record on other matters, these charges are silly and deserve scrutiny.
It is fair game to criticize the followers of a known charlatan for allowing such a person to speak on their behalf. O’Reilly does not speak on my behalf. I am not one of his followers. I am not attending O’Reilly rallies or giving money to O’Reilly “charities” or showing up at O’Reilly prayer breakfasts or doing anything else along those lines. Nothing I am saying or doing gives O’Reilly any additional political clout.
So no, you can’t call me a “bad person.” Unless by “bad person” you mean “someone who calls people on their bullshit.”
I don’t care if you believe me. I didn’t lie the first time and I didn’t lie about this. I don’t know of a comprehesive archive of transcripts for Bill O’Reilly “talking points” but I’ll try to describe what I saw a objectively as I can remember.
O’Reilly showed a poll that showed a large percentage of African-Americans opposed the war. O’Reilly then said that all Americans had a duty to support the war, including black Americans, and that anyone who didn’t was a “traitor” He has made statements like this on numerous occasions. Here’s a similar quote I found from oreilly-sucks.com It’s from a different episode but it shows the color of hi rhetoric:
(And just to be clear, O’Reilly does define simple protesting as “'working against” our military.)
He went on to say that black’s owed “loyalty” to the US because they were better off here than in Africa. That’s as fair a description as I can give. He didn’t explicitly say they should be grateful for slavery, but (IMO and YMMV) I think it’s an unavoidable implication from that statement. I wish I could link to the video. There was an unmistakeable current of anger and resentment that all those black folks would dare oppose his president.
Believe me or not. It’s no skin off my dick.
He’s very generic in his statements. He speaks in broad, sweeping terms about the “African-American community’s support” for these guys. He doesn’t make distinctions. It’s all just black folks.
It’s a sin of omission. Obviously I can’t link to ever single episode, but from what I’ve seen, he invariably shoots down the notion that anything can be done legislatively to ease problems in the inner cities. It’s all self-righteous moral criticism of blacks with no other point.
I thought it was well-meaning, sincere, and somewhat paternalistic (in a 1960s way). It isn’t condescending and moralistic the way O’Reilly is.
He shouldn’t make condescending moral judgements if he isn’t willing to offer any alternatives.
This isn’t a matter of “I don’t believe you” and “You don’t believe me”. You attributed things to O’Reilly that he didn’t say. Not only were you unable to produce him saying what he claimed you did, but I was able to produce him saying things that directly refute your claims. (from your own cite) Instead of admitting you were wrong, you continue to assert that which clearly isn’t true. That makes you a liar.
Your memory regarding O’Reilly is clearly not to be trusted. There is no point in us trying to debate other issues around O’Reilly. He comes down on the conservative side of many issues. This makes him so evil in your opinion that it’s ok to slander him in order to discredit him. Your obviously not going to let any pesky facts get in your way here.
The moderators ban those that don’t follow the rules of our forums. O’Reilly is the moderator of his forum. It’s extremely rare for him to cut somones mike like he did to Glick. I can only recall it happenning a couple times in years of watching him. O’Reilly attempted to end the interview. Glick wouldn’t shut up. O’Reilly cut his mike. Meanwhile, O’Reilly didn’t say anything further to Glick out of respect for his father. Also, at the beginning of the next segment he apologized to the viewers, saying he would never have had Glick on if he knew how he would act.
Also, O’Reilly has many critics listening to everything he says, waiting for him to slip. He’s on TV for an hour every weekday on Fox. He’s on the radio for 3 hours a day in most markets. He appears in lots of other venues as well. I heard him on the Imus show this morning getting interviewed. All of this exposure, and the best people can do to show him lying is to completely mis-represent what O’Reilly says. It only took Diogenes a dozen posts in this thread to walk straight into a more blatant lie than O’Reilly has ever told.
Well maybe I have misinterpreted the intent of his program. I thought it was a debate/interview show with some ‘plain talk’ from the presenter.
To me it looked like he disagreed with the interviewee, wouldn’t let him get a word in edgeways, insulted him, shouted at him, then curtailed the interview. It looked amateurish and pathetic.
But if that’s what his bag is, and people like to watch that kind of thing, then fair play to him.
You would have to be a regular viewer of O’Reilly to understand the meaning of this. O’Reilly’s show broke the story about how the Red Cross was not delivering the money donated by Americans for the 9/11 victims’ families. He did many shows on the subject before anyone else had picked up on it. The ICRC and others were keeping much of the funds donated for victims families for future terror attacks, rather than giving it to those it was donated for.
This also led to his feud with many hollywood celebs like George Clooney because he called them out on the fact that they had the charity drive for the 9/11 victims but wouldn’t take any responsability for how the money was being spent.
O’Reilly deserves much of the credit for the fact that the Red Cross was forced to start sending out the money that they were making interest on. Of course, the rest of the media doesn’t give him any credit for this.
So, when O’Reilly says he did more for the 9/11 victims than Glick ever will, he wasn’t referring to any charity work he has done. He is referring to the work he did towards getting the money released.
Yep. Re-reading that part of my post, it does look like I am blowing smoke up O’Reilly’s ass. I’ll rephrase.
O’Reilly was clearly pissed off. He lost his cool and acted unprofessionally. However, he did catch himself and stop from going any farther. That’s when he said the “out of respect for your father” line.
One the show last night, he showcased a poverty exhibit that is underway at the Habitat for Humanity headquarters in Georgia. He interviewed the director. He also had on some newspaper guy who disagreed with the exhibit. He told the newspaper guy that it was good for Americans to see how other people in the world had to live. This was a three minute segment on a topic he didn’t have to do. Try as some of you might, he is not the right-wing evil man you think he is.
And that’s the sort of tricky-dick holier-than-thou rhetoric that irritates me to no end.
I don’t think he’s right wing. I just think he has no right to talk about spin. Spin is not having this or that point of view. It’s slanting rhetoric and presentation of the facts to sell a particular ideology. The position he sells is his, not the right-wings’. But it’s no less spin than all the people he calls on it.
Evil: Those who want to believe O’Reilly is Evil Incarnate[sup]tm[/sup] will continue to believe that. It’s rather amusing, though, to watch them rant about him cutting off folks. Whenever I watch the dude’s show, the only folks he cuts off–from whatever political bent they may be–are those who try to answer the questions they wish he’d ask instead of the questions he actually asked.
