No, no, it’s “estrogen-fueled liberal pinhead.” You missed the misogynistic part.
Obviously the take away from all this is we should side with Bill O and watch Hannah Montana for all our political commentary. After all her ratings are higher then both Bill and Rachel therefore we should expect more integrity there right?
oops
Don’t forget the part about being estrogen-fueled! Now then, Tim, you decided to lump in Rachel Maddow with the hens on “The View” because…? Because they have vaginas, and are liberal? Uh hmm.
I might even be convinced that selling a false story doesn’t necessarily make one stupid, but it certainly does make one lazy. A little bit of research is against the rules in the fair and balanced, we report, you decide, No Spin Zone apparently? WordMan’s point is clear and valid: Fox News was full of shit, Madame Maddow called them out, then O’Reilly tried to whip out his ratings dick, as if that were a rebuttal of her case.
Miss Maddow intentionally misses Bill O’s point. In attacking O’Reilly Maddow is trying to present herself as being on his level. She was hoping to get him into a debate where she could appear as his equal and exagerate her own importance. By responding about ratings, instead of on the issue, O’Reilly shows that he sees what she is trying to do and is above doing it. Eagles don’t hunt flies after all. Maddow and her ilk are having a hard time with Barry O’s presidency and are trying to find a bogeyman to stir up hate against and juice their ratings. Maybe after the elections in November they can find a new politician to hate who will be as good to them as Bush was.
Whatever. You’re right, because Maddow is championing doing your research, common sense and integrity, it shouldn’t matter because her voice isn’t as loud as O’Reilly’s. :rolleyes:
“I don’t have to respond to you, regardless of whether you are right, because you aren’t worthy of my time” - okay, if that’s his position, it makes Bill O’Reilly - regardless of his specific political views - look like an even bigger douchebag.
I have requested that this thread be shut down.
Why? It’s a good topic of discussion.
Wow. And you’re serious. Wow.
Wow. Starving Artist has competition.
That’s Dr. Maddow.
The Cafe Society mods have discussed this and decided to leave it open – the fact that it’s gone in a direction the OP didn’t anticipate doesn’t mean the thread has been hijacked.
One day, facts will triumph over FOX; until then, Rachel Maddow, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are better news sources than anything on faux ‘news-like product’.
Sorry, I don’t believe that you’re correct on this.
Bill O’s point is that ratings absolve him of any wrong. It doesn’t matter when he’s wrong or when he lies or when he tortures puppies, his ratings prove that he’s an okay guy and, in fact, better liked than Rachel. Might makes right*.
*(c) GOP
I see. So you think wrestling must be a legitimate sport because it has great ratings. Interesting.
Heaven forbid that someone with a doctorate in politics from Oxford dare question someone with a high-rated show! Oh, how ever will she atone for her grievous error?
By the way, you obviously haven’t watched the shows in question. Maddow and Olbermann are among those on the left who call Pres. Obama on the carpet repeatedly when they disagree with his policies/decisions.
Another Bill O’Reilly gnostic. Only those who have the secret knowledge can understand…:rolleyes:
Very disingenuous argument. Basically, you’re overlooking libel to cover up for Bill’s sins. What if it were the other way around?
I don’t recall Dr. Maddow ever becoming so flustered that she walked out on an interview. But that’s what Mr. O’Reilly did on an NPR interview with Terry Gross. Maybe he thought it wasn’t fair and balanced. I can’t imagine Rachel losing it like that.
She does seem to have qualities of emotional intelligence that he doesn’t have.
By the way, for those of you among us with misogynistic tendencies and lacking in apparent powers of observation, not all of the women on The View are liberal in their viewpoints. Someone pointed that out with the name of at least one very conservative participant.
There’s more than one Northwestern. Ho hum.
Yes ma’am. Umm, Dr. Err, Ms. twicks, sir; shit, er, um, ma’am.
I am just stunned that O’Reilly defenders put supporting him in front of the basic facts. I support people but regulary find fault with them - that’s life. You support O’Reilly’s basic political positions and/or him as a personality? Cool! Not my cuppa, but variety is the spice of YMMV, or thereabouts.
But O’Reilly is simply wrong here. You are welcome to like him more than Maddow, but this is just…douchebaggery.
Can’t mean that. There are only two of those on The View. (Whoopie and Joy. (Shut UP,) Elizabeth and Sherri are fairly conservative. Baba Wawa usually maintains a quite dignified moderatorial neutrality.)
(Oh, and there IS a Whoopie corrolary: Fellow Hollywood stars can do no wrong. If Joe Schmo had drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl and then fled the country or left a horribly violent and vile message on his baby momma’s answering machine, Whoopie would NOT be on the View defending him.)
Hmm. By those standards, Whoopie is, indeed, a douchebag. 
I thought O’Reilly brought up his ratings numbers because that proves more people go to him for their news analysis than other shows.
That may be true, but I don’t know how that absolves him of jumping to conclusions on the Sherrod story (like a lot of other people did). He admitted his mistake afterwards, but he doesn’t feel he needs to dwell on that. Others’ mileage may vary.