Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Just wondering if anyone watched this? It was pretty interesting watching two complete opposites go at it. Probably the only entertaining thing The O'Reily Factor has ever produced.

I was especially surprised that O'Reily didn't just cut off Moores mic, as he usually does when an argument gets heated.

Anyway, both arguments were pretty weak, Moore had the advantage for the first couple of minutes, then O'Reily seemed to pull ahead and exploit some of Moores hypocritical ideas.

Whatever the case, it was fun to watch.

Oh, and in case you missed it, you can find it at www.foxnews.com

I hate Bill O'Reily

bill is nothing more than a big blubbering vagina(dont believe me? go to maddox's site...) and fox news is bull crap. they should present the argument in its entirety

Both O'Reily and Moore suck.

I'm glad Moore put the film out there to expose Bush for exactly what he is but that doesn't mean I like him. O'Reilly is a complete moron. He blatantly distorts facts or outright lies. He's not a real journalist. He's a Right Wing puppet. He IS hysterical to watch when he goes after ''Rap and Hip Hop Artists.''

two of a kind

watched it on the site just now....

ic an see what moore wast TRYING to say...but he didn't quite pull it as he should have. anywya..point taken...i agree with him

moore is a loser

hmm well its one loser good at attracting attention

Charlie Rose had a great interview with Moore three weeks ago. Charlie takes no crap from anyone including Moore. Rose owns O'Reily when it comes to interviews.

btw-I highly recommend this book for Michael Moore fans:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0060763957.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

not much of a moore fan myself...as for the fox news...never watched those..

michal moore is and a class loser

How come Michael Moore wasn't the one to pursue the Super Size Me project? Huh? Huh?

I wish Al Franken and O'Reilly would go at it... Now THAT would be a debate

Honestly, I don't see what people's problem is with Moore. I think he's rather entertaining, myself.

well put




coz the last thing his fat ass needs is a super size

Yeah, Its pretty funny to see that big,stupid,white man lie

Yup!
Both hypocritical propaganda spreading bigots.
From different points of view.

Moore is good...he presents his views in an overtly biased way, but unlike O'Reilly the ideas lying underneath are good.

But not a *****.

Because he would never attack something he loves and respects the most in his life.......big and greasy HAMBURGERS!

I read the transcript. It sounded like two retards with type A personalities fighting over a piece of pie.

Yeah, that's about right.

true

clap

Um... yeah... I actually didn't mean it that way, not that it would matter to you anyways

There's very little difference between Moore and O'Reilly, except for the fact that Moore actually tries to be funny, and is liberal. I'll say again... I like his films.

Morre is pretty funny sometimes, but for political commentators my favorite is Bill Maher.

Yeah, Bill Maher is great!

Bill O'Reilly rocks. Moore had his ass handed to him.

I want Bill to run for President. I love people that tell it like it is.

There's a reason his TV and radio shows have the highest ratings, and are first in their time slots. Same goes for all of his #1 best selling books.

Honestly, if you don't like what he's got to say, you're probably pretty one sided.

How ironic, since he's probably the most one sided human being I've ever heard of.

He doesn't really "tell it like it is", he gives his opinions as if they're facts, which they are not. This seems to trick people into thinking that he's stating facts, which he is not.

I don't hate Bill O'Riely, but I think he's really over rated, he's not a very good debater at all, he just repeats the same thing over and over again and then cuts people off when they're trying to give their response. His show is alright at times, but it gets old hearing him give the same tired notions over and over again.

Anyways, every negative thing I could ever say about Bill O'Riely has already been said beautifully in this article - http://www.maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=bill_oreilly

Whatever your views are you probably shouldn't say them out loud.

That's what most one sided people say about him.

If you honestly think he's biased to either "side", you clearly don't watch the show, or have a mind set that won't allow to you take into accounts all sides of any given story.

It's funny how he gets email every single day, from people telling him he's biased. Once person will call him a radical far left liberal, then the next email will bash him for being a right wing conservative.

Make a list of where he stands on different issues, then try to lump him into a category other than "Independant". I dare ya.

Have you ever noticed that no one that challenges him is able to back up their proof of his bias, either way? He always wants his critics on the show. Most simply "hide under their desks" as he would say. Others that are man enough to go on the show, are widdled down in a matter of minutes. Having their own bias and lack of factual evidence brought to light.

Also, he only cuts people off when they're circling around and avoiding the question asked. He'll ask the same question 3 times, and if the other person refuses to answer with a statement relevant to the question asked, he'll write 'em off. That's not at all rude.

I'm not reading the opinion of any 20 year old, ignorant jackass that goes on a tyrade of personal opinion that starts with a statement like "Bill O'Reilly is a big blubbering vagina." and closes with the link "Back to how much I rule..."

The mere fact that you point to this article as a reflection of your own feelings, speaks volumes about you.

He's extremely one sided from what I've seen, granted I don't watch his show very often (find it boring if I watch it for more then 5 minutes at a time) but from what I've seen he's almost always agreeing with Bush or the Republican party in general (not always of course, but more often then not).

Also, the example of the emails he recieves is not proof of anything other then the complete idiocy of most of his viewers. Yes, there is a reason why his show is so popular, it's the same reason reality shows and bad sitcoms are popular, because most people who watch them are stupid, and his show is no different. The proof is in the emails he recieves.

It's true that he does cut off the mics of people when they are avoiding his question, but I've seen him do it plenty of times when he's simply losing an argument. He'll get all upitty and start calling them names to try to hurt their creidiblity, then cut their mic when they keep pimping him all over the place.

Anyways, I suggest you read the article I posted, there's some extrmely valid points in it. The fact that you are judging the entire article simply by the title despite the solid facts it makes speaks volumes about you. Don't let the crude title fool you, it's actually a very solid and humerous article, sadly it's probably the most entertaining, intelegent and witty thing Bill O'Riely has ever been accociated with.

The difference is Moore is challenging the status quo instead of challenging people who challenge it like Bill O'Reilly. If Bill O'Reilly could pull his head out of his ass for a while he'd see why Moore does what he does. Regardless of why, he is waking some people up.

-AC

No Alison, you're so far off it's not belieavable. He's even admitted it himself, he's a far-right extreme.

Off Topic: That Maddox the pirate guy is a complete dumbass.

Absolute statements require absolute knowledge. That means you need factual evidence to back up your claims. Show me proof, and I'll believe you. Proof is not the personal opinion of you, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, your father, Al Sharpton, or anyone else. Find me something on foxnews.com, foxnews.com/oreilly, or billoreilly.com that corroborates your statement.

I defy you to find a direct statement from him that says that. Fortunately that shouldn't take you very long, since you say he said it himself.

1) You're going to have to point said "extremely valid points" out to me, because I must have missed them.

2) Come on...you can create sentences by yourself without having to lift mine, can't ya?


Now....I did go through it. Just for you.

Breakdown:

Starts off with a clear bias against Bill O'Reilly.
"Bill O'Reilly is a big blubbering vagina."


Nothing more than immature insults. It worries me that he has the time to not only think about all this, but to site down and create an entire webpage to fill with it.


More immature personal commentary without any solid justifications for such criticisms.


The show archives don't go back to June of 2003. Therefore, due solely to the fact that the remaining 98% of that particular segment was left out, I feel I can safely ignore his entire argument.


More immature name calling.



This statement implies that Bill O'Reilly sued Al Franken, which is incorrect. The Fox News Channel sued Al Franken and his publishing house only to stop them from using the phrase "fair and balanced" in the title of his book. Bill O'Reilly was in no way involved with the suit.



So this guy is all disgruntled because he doesn't like the way Bill O'Reilly speaks? And he has nothing better to do but to make a web page about it? That aside, is the above statement anything more than personal opinion? The way in which Bill O'Reilly talks, or the words he chooses, have absolutely nothing to due with his ability to report news and current events in a fair way.


All TV personalities have wardrobes provided to them by the station they work for. I thought that was common knowledge. But just to back this up, here it is straight from www.foxnews.com: "'You have the best-dressed male newscasters with the nicest suits I have seen on TV. _Do you require this of everyone, or do you supply all their clothes?

Gwen Marder, one of our FOX Fashion Stylists says, "Thank you for noticing. TV is a very visual medium and we feel that paying attention to every aspect of production is important; lighting, graphics, music, sets and, of course, wardrobe. The wardrobe department combs the menswear and womenswear clothing markets to bring our talent the most professional and coordinated looks that complete the successful FOX visual impact."


Still more immature name calling. I expected to be able to find at least one intelligent point to debate.

Homepage:
Nice. Very Michael Moore.


Clearly an emotionally mature, educated, classy individual...

I'm not sure why you would point to this particular article to illustrate the point you were trying to make regarding Bill O'Reilly. There is not a single fact to be found on the page, much less the site. The entire website is dedicated to the opinion of the creator. What's more, it's virtually all belligerent, immature rhetoric from one person that, quite obviously, doesn't have much else to do other than complain about virtually everything he comes into contact with.

I'm more than willing to concede to well thought out, factual arguments you or anyone else might have. But all I'm getting is personal opinion. Which, as I said before, has absolutely no bearing whatsoever in an argument about a particular persons skills or abilities. I mean really, dislike him all you want. But don't make claims about someone being a biased, one sided, bigot without having anything concrete to back it up. At least have the humility and fortitude to call your opinion what it is.

uh oh, something got fisked.

Maddox the loser is just an immature computer tech. who is pissed off at all the high school football players of the world who beat him up. So he lets it all out on his site.

The one's who give the beatings are bigger losers than the ones who take it.

-AC

"During an interview with NPR's Terri Gross, Bill was quoted as saying: "don't take your ire out on my product because you don't like me." Hey Bill, isn't that the whole premise behind a BOYCOTT? Big blubbering Bill chose not to drink Pepsi when they signed rapper Ludacris to do commercials, yet he expects people to go out and buy his shitty new book even if they don't like him (don't take my word for it being shitty, check out what people are saying on Amazon). "

There's a solid point. Why is it okay for him to boycott something, but when it comes to his book, everyone should buy it reguardless of whether or not they like him? Sounds like hypocracy to me.

"Boorish intimidation towards guests who have something better to do then appear on the O'Riely Factor"

Does this all the time. I've seen him do it. He will claim someone is a coward if they don't appear on his show, despite it being nothing more then probably having something more important to do then go on his show.

"Labeling his guests as unpatriotic if they disagree with him"

Again, I've seen this one happen quite a bit, it's almost as stupid as the blind and unprovable statement "anyone who disagrees with him is one sided". You seem to be all for proving things, so prove this to me, or maybe you should take your own advice and recognize your opinion as such.

"Asking rapid fire questions without giving the guest a chance to reply"

Seen this happen numerous times on his show. One of his more annoying traits.

"Makes controversial claims without siting recourses"

This should be a big one for you since you're so upitty with proving statements people make during an argument.

"Speaking of his shitty new book, there's a quote in it saying "in order to be truly successful you have to be brutally honest with yourself. Excuses and rationalizations have to be put aside. You must define your own life," continuing with the definition he's giving you for your life " not let others do it for you." Wow, thanks Bill! You condescending son of a *****. As if he wasn't already a giant self-collapsing vortex of hypocrisy, there are literally thousands of other examples I could cite of him "defining" people's lives. For example, regarding people who support Michael Jackson, he said "all Americans should remain on the sidelines and watch the process." Oh really? Does that include you, Bill? Or are broad sweeping generalizations about what "Americans should do" inapplicable to cranky, joyless blowhards?"

Sounds like a valid point to me.

Those are the points you seemed to pass on or miss entirely. How convinient you only pointed out the instances of "immature name calling" as if that's all his article was. These instances of "immature name calling" was simply put in as a humerous bumper to wade the reader into his actual points against Bill O'Riely.

I find it wierd you use the cop out argument of "it's only his opinion". I hear that alot around here, and I tire of it. I never once, not ONCE said there was anything more then an opinion presented on that site. What I did say was he raised some good POINT about Bill O'Riely. There are no facts here, everything that has been said is merely opinion, including *GASP* you're statements as well. The statement of "everyone who disagrees with him is one sided" is YOUR opinion and nothing more, just as my statements about him being one sided are MY opinion, and everything Maddox had to say about O'Riely is HIS opionion (actually he did bring up some facts, like the shitty reviews of his book on Amazon.com). I tire of having to explain this to everyone. You say you don't want to argue over opinions, wake up, that's exactly what you're doing. You're arguing because our opinions on the man differ, nothing more.

I also find it humerous that you read a maddox article and say "it frightens me that he has the time to write articles like this" yet you're spending your time writing a large statement about your opinion on Bill O'Riely, the only difference is you're defending him, and he's attacking him.

There's alot of hypocracy in your statements, from complaining that everyones just giving their opinions about him and that you want facts, despite you doing the exact same thing as everyone else in giving nothing more then your opinion, to doing what many guests do on the O'Riely factor by "avoiding the point". For example....

"All TV personalities have wardrobes provided to them by the station they work for. I thought that was common knowledge. But just to back this up, here it is straight from www.foxnews.com: "'You have the best-dressed male newscasters with the nicest suits I have seen on TV. _Do you require this of everyone, or do you supply all their clothes?

Gwen Marder, one of our FOX Fashion Stylists says, "Thank you for noticing. TV is a very visual medium and we feel that paying attention to every aspect of production is important; lighting, graphics, music, sets and, of course, wardrobe. The wardrobe department combs the menswear and womenswear clothing markets to bring our talent the most professional and coordinated looks that complete the successful FOX visual impact.""

This is not the point at all. His point is that O'Riely does all this stuff while trying to attain the image of a "working class Joe", which he is not.

Anyways, I suppose a certain ammount of hypocracy should be expected from such a blind fan of Mr. O'Riely, since it's sucha big part of his show.

Heh, this "loser" has become very successful off of his website. He's being offered many jobs, from sitcom writing, to hosting his own radio show. Keep in mind this guy's website grew in popularity by nothing other then word of mouth. He has no ads for it, he has no publicity, he became popular just because his articles are so generally fun to read.

Yeah, a real "loser". Coming from someone who has that rectal scrap "kid rock" in his avatar and sig, that's saying alot.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAH
HAAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAhahahahahah

Fox News = hitler

So I guess that means you couldn't find anything? How am I supposed to believe what you say, when you can't prove it? You said that he himself said that he was infact a "far right extreme."

Yet when I ask you for the direct quote, you can't find it?
Why even bring it up? If you can find it, I'll agree, you'll be right. I'll be wrong, I'll shout it from the roof tops. I only asked that you find it.

Find it anywhere you like, as long as it's not a snipet taken entirely out of context. So if you get it from cnn.com or something, I want atleast the two sentences before and after the statement in question.

I believe he was laughing at the sites you mentioned. As if he's going to put a quote like that on his site, or as if anyone who dependant on his success (foxnew.com, etc) is going to post a quote saying "I'm a far right wing extremist" seeing as it will only make more people dislike him.

Now, I don't particularly think he's a "far right wing extremist", I've been inclined to agree with him on some occasions (I don't remember when, but trust me, it happened), however, when I said he was one sided, I meant that he is USUALLY giving opinions that are very comparable to the beliefs of very strong republican beliefs.

And just for you, yes, this is all my opinion, nothing more.

What does my sig and Avatar have to do with anything?
If you want to go that way I could say anyone who likes horror movies is a 'loser' and has no life..but I wont say that just becuase you like something doesnt mean you are like that but maybe you are who knows. Anyway like I said maddox is a loser.

Also if you read any of Maddox hate mail all his comebacks are
"have fun frying my french fries you big sports athlete har har har!!!" or somethins stupid. When we all know those jocks back in highschool who became football players make more in a year then he does in 10.

A "loser" who is becomming very successful becuase of that website. Perhaps you dislike him because you are one of the "dumb jocks" he mocks constantly on his site. What is your defintion of a loser anyways? Because I really doubt Maddox fits into anyones definition.

And your sig and avatar have to do with everything, because no one with a brain likes that dipshit kid rock, therefor nothing you say has any credibility. It would be like if my favorite movie was Glitter, and I tried to say anything bad about anything, no one would take me seriously because I like such a horrible movie, thus having bad taste.

"Also if you read any of Maddox hate mail all his comebacks are
"have fun frying my french fries you big sports athlete har har har!!!" or somethins stupid. When we all know those jocks back in highschool who became football players make more in a year then he does in 10."

Yeah, all 1% of them that make it into the big leagues. He's accurate in saying that most jocks do actually have shitty jobs after high school, since they get basically carried through school because of their sport. Then they get into the real world and have no real world skills because running and catching a ball doesn't translate into something that any of them will find usefull in a normal job.

Lol this coming from a guy with "infected" under his avatar. Are you gonna call kidrock a dumbass? I doubt it since it would be pretty ironic he makes a LOT more money then you ever will...but hes such a "dumbass"

he does make horrible music though

Yes, god forbid I have a reference to a movie in my avatar when we are, after all, ON A SITE DEDICATED TO MOVIES.

And if Forrest Gump showed us anything, it's that money doesn't automatically equate to intelegence.

Also, that's quite a judgement you made on me, I'm only 21 years old, still going to college, yet you seem sure that I will never make as much money as Kid Crap. How do you know this? As if Kid Rock won't just blunder his money on drugs and hookers in a few years when he's on the lists of "one hit wonders" on VH1.

Maybe you will make a lot of money..what do I care? You say "kid crap" yet hes making so much money obviously something isnt to crappy about him. Also if your so sure your going to make a lot of money why are you getting so defensive? I just made my opinion I think maddox is a jackass and you defend him like hes your god.

1. Kid Rock IS a dumbass with easily a quarter of the brainpower Maddox has.

2. I don't always agree with him, but his site can be pretty entertaining. It also helps that I've never liked jocks.

http://maddox.xmission.com/adaptation.html

Ah Gotta love the maddox sterotyping. Isnt he just a genius.


EDIT: Was fun argueing with you guys but I must be off.

i just dont get kid rock. he wants to rap then he goes all country. he isnt really sure what he wants to suck at.but what ever he does he still sucks

Yes, I think he's a god because I enjoy reading his articles and feel he usually raises valid points in them. So, now if I defend someone against a vague, idiotic attack such as calling them a "loser" without any justification as to WHY he's a loser, I think they're a god? Yeah, you're really showing me how shitty maddox is with you're great reasoning. Again, why is he a loser?

His site is among the most popular on the net, and unlike Kid Rock, he got popular through word of mouth and NOTHING more. People thought he was humerous and talented so they pointed it out to their friends, who pointed it out to their friends, and now he's gotten popular while keeping his credibility and dignity. Unlike Kid Crap, who whored himself to MTV (Moron TV) in order to get them to cram his stupid gibberish song "Bawitaba" down our throats untill people liked him (as MTV does with most shitty artists they want to get popular). The world is finally recovering from this horrid attack on society, which would account for his progressively waning record sales and concert ticket sales.

Then again, maybe with such intriguing song titles such as "American Badass", "Bawitaba", and the oh so classy and intelegent "**** Off" he truly is an intelegent individual.

Perhaps you haven't heard, but that "Stereotype" he presented is acutally quite true. I hear people talking like that all the time. But I guess you're to busy listening to the lyrical genius of Kid Rock to hear the way so many stupid teens talk.

Funny BackFire if my name wasnt KidRock you would have no arguement.

You'd still have that shitty sig and avatar showing that guys ugly mug.

and yes you right all teenagers think there "to cool for school"
Since Maddox Stereotyping is right as you say..

Ok so all people who are crazy about old style horror movies are umm gothic fat have little social life...I guess thats right? Since thats the Sterotype I get about them it must be correct.

Where in that article does he say ALL teens talk like that and think they are "2 cool 4 skool"? Simple, it doesn't. All he says is that the kids who were in the movie theater that day were complete idiots. That's not stereotyping.

The kid shirt says "to cool for school" and hes obviously stereotyping teenagers.

Ah, now I'm saying "ALL"? kids are like this? I never said that, and neither did Maddox. He's making a statement abou the kids that ARE like that, nothing more. The fact that you somehow got the idea that he was saying all teens are like that is very strange.

As for your stereotype, despite it being greatly idiotic and blatantly incorrect, it's nothing more then a contrived, watered down, dimwitted attack on me and my interest to try to get me back for the put downs of Kid rock. Most horror fans are not gothic, in fact, I know very few that are. All of the horror fans I know are actually quite friendly in real life, and have a very nice social life. Actually, perhaps if you'd venture into the Horror forum from time to time, you'd see that some of the most intelegent and cool members of this site are regulars there (lead my Alisons own boyfriend, the master of sarcasm - Cinemadiction, and the supremely awesome Evil Dead) Neither of which fit you're forced, silly stereotype that I doubt you even believe.

In fact, you're statement isn't even a stereotype, as most people don't even believe that. A stereotype is a misconception of a certain type of people that is greatly accepted. Your statements doesn't fall under this catagory, since they're your views and yours alone.

Lol ok BackFire no hard feelings mate cheers

Of course not.

i kinda trashed kid rock. i am sorry is it cool

No problems.

As far as I can tell, after doing multiple searches, Terry Gross was only on The Factor once. And after reading the transcript from the segment, Bill O'Reilly never said what was supposedly a direct quote from him. In fact, the word "boycott" wasn't used even once. The discussion had absolutely nothing to do with a boycott of any sort. I read the transcript of the interview on foxnews.com, and a summary on the NPR site.

So unless there's some other interview, Mr. Maddox has incorrectly quoted, and bashed, Mr. O'Reilly something that was never said.




This is another matter of personal opinion and interpretation. However, from what I've seen, he doesn't call someone a coward until all of the following:
1) The person claims Bill O'Reilly lied, exaggerated, or made up something he said on air.
2) Said person ignores or refuses multiple (at least 3) requests for an on air interview.

In which case, I'd whole heartedly agree with someone being a coward. If you're going to call someone a liar or anything else, it is absolutely imperative that you have solid factual evidence of such a thing. But again, it all comes down to speculation, because neither Mr. Maddox or yourself give specific examples of who was called a coward.



1) Another generalization, without any specific examples. Tell me who, and when. Otherwise, it can't really be debated, can it?

2) You have incorrectly quoted me. Your recreated, indirect quote says that I think that anyone that disagrees with him is one sided. What I said was "Honestly, if you don't like what he's got to say, you're probably pretty one sided." Why do you feel it necessary to contort my words? I never even said the word disagree. Yet you went out of the way to spin what I said.

Furthermore, What I said is based in fact. Because most (most being the majority) of the people that dismiss virtually everything Mr. O'Reilly (or anyone else for that matter) says, have a blatant bias. This includes both you, and Mr. Maddox. I can safely say this, because of the fact that both of you bash O'Reilly without giving facts. And you admit to this further down by conceding that it is all opinion.



Again, if we're going to have anything that even remotely resembles an intelligent debate, you need to have facts. You need examples of this. Tell me who he asked rapid fire questions to, without giving time to reply. Generalizations don't work in debates.

This just makes my day, you trying to turn this around on me. But in the end, this is another generalization, without a single fact. What unsubstantiated controversial claim did he make? When? To who? About what? We can't debate what doesn't exist.

Does Mr. Maddox happen to suffer from Attention Deficit Disorder, by any chance? That might very well be thee most poorly structured, incoherent paragraph I have ever read.

But I'll try like hell to assimilate this and squeeze some fact from it.

Mr. Maddox is contending that the quote "In order to be truly successful, you have to be brutally honest with yourself. Excuses and rationalizations have to be put aside. You must define your own life, no let others do it for you." is a "giant self collapsing vortex of hyprocrisy." And one of "literally thousands" of hypocritical statements in one of Mr. O'Reilly's books. But where is the hypocrisy in that statement? What has Bill O'Reilly done to contradict the above quote? How is what he said not true? People do have to be honest in order to be successful. Liars don't make it very far in life. So from the sounds of it, he thinks that this is hypocritical because Bill O'Reilly himself is a liar? That would be the argument, correct? OK. So what are the lies he told that make the above statement hypocritical? Make me a list.

Oh goody, here's an example from Mr. Maddox. "For example, regarding people who support Michael Jackson, he said "all Americans should remain on the sidelines and watch the process." Oh really? Does that include you, Bill? Or are broad sweeping generalizations about what "Americans should do" inapplicable to cranky, joyless blowhards?"

What? Does any of that make any sense to anyone? I'm finding it difficult to even understand what he's complaining about here. Mr. Maddox says that an O'Reilly quote regarding Michael Jackson is hypocritical. How? The O'Reilly quote that "All Americans should remain on the sidelines and watch the process," is a far and valid statement that simply repeats our nations beliefs that all who are charged with a crime are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Where is the "broad sweeping generalization" in that?

I also feel it necessary to point out that Mr.Maddox tells us that the quote was direct at people who support Michael Jackson. But how do we know that, without simply believing that Mr. Maddox didn't make any assumptions as to who it was directed at? I would like to know what episode he's quoting to be able to analyze for myself, all of what was said. I have problems with people that tear apart one sentence, without providing the context in which it was said. But even still, I don't see how that quote in and of itself was a hypocritical generalization, as Mr. Maddox claims it to be.


Humorous? Humorous to whom? Hostile, immature, 17 year old males? You might find it humorous, but some of the words used are highly disrespectful to all sorts of people. Ever hear the old cliche "you catch more flies with vinegar than honey"? It's true. Who wants to listen to someone that does nothing but verbally abuse someone they disagree with? If you want me to dislike someone, or you want to get a point across to me, use facts. Tell me why someone is a liar. Show me where they lied, and what it was about. Don't expect me to believe it just because you say it. So I ask that you help me understand why you say the things you do, by backing up your statements with facts, not opinions.

1) How is it a cop out? I thought you were going to enlighten me with examples of Bill O'Reilly telling lies, so that I might be able to understand why you think the way that you do. I can't distrust a person, because someone else "feels" that they are a liar.

2) "I never once, not ONCE said there was anything more then an opinion presented on that site."

No, but you did say "Anyways, every negative thing I could ever say about Bill O'Riely has already been said beautifully in this article - http://www.maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=bill_oreilly" which, after reading "He doesn't really "tell it like it is", he gives his opinions as if they're facts" and "he's not a very good debater at all" tells me that you are about to back up your claims with solid facts. Does it not?

3) "There are no facts here, everything that has been said is merely opinion, including *GASP* you're statements as well. The statement of "everyone who disagrees with him is one sided" is YOUR opinion and nothing more" That is incorrect because as I pointed out above, you recreated what I said, using your own words.

4) "Everything Maddox had to say about O'Riely is HIS opionion (actually he did bring up some facts, like the shitty reviews of his book on Amazon.com)" Actually, that is one fact that you pointed out. But I'm glad I at least have one thing to work with....

The overall rating is 3 out of 5, which is above half, so I fail to see the argument. Anyway, the argument itself is still flawed, because it comes down to other peoples opinion of the book.

The amusing part is, the people who gave it one star are mostly all Maddox followers, and even Maddox himself! HA! Even better, is that the people who slammed it;
1) Aren't registered.
2) Refuse to give any information about themselves, or even their location.
3) Never reviewed any other books! So most of these people actually took the time to go to Amazon, solely to bash O'Reilly's book! If that doesn't show a clear bias....
4) Don't say anything factual about how the book was written, or how the content was laid out. But instead, bash O'Reilly himself.

If I'm going to review a CD, for example, I'm going to review the cd. Not say "This Hole CD sucks. Courtney Love is a drug addicted whore," which has absolutely nothing to do with the item I am supposed to being reviewing.

So again. The people that gave it a fair review, review the book itself. The others say nothing about the book, but instead make themselves look ignorant by simply saying things like "I can still see it when I close my eyes!!! Ahhh! make it stop! for the love of God!" and "I've always had a severe hatred for Bill O'Reilly."





You said "Anyways, I suggest you read the article I posted, there's some extrmely valid points in it." and "it's actually a very solid and humerous article." So I obliged, and said that "Now....I did go through it. Just for you. " I don't really see your argument here. It takes me a lot less time to reply to your posts, then for someone to sit down, dream up elaborate and explicit scenarios about someone smelling socks, and throw it all together in HTML format, then upload it to my site, and make links for it.

Also, I didn't defend Bill O'Reilly. I'm trying to find out why I'm supposed to listen to someone's baseless personal attacks, and accept them as fact. I just want the proof of Bill O'Reilly being a liar and a hypocrite. I am more than open to change. But I need proof of someone's lies before I can call them a liar. Since your and Mr. Maddox both say he's just about the biggest liar and hypocrite ever, I didn't think it would be that hard to extract some fact based examples. But it turns out, it's harder than pulling teeth.



What?! Are you on drugs?! What do you mean that's not the point?! Mr. Maddox makes a clear point against Bill by accusing him of "Aligning himself with the working class while wearing a $3,000 suit."
How is that not the point? My God. You might very well be the most biased, close minded person I've ever tried to have a civil discussion with! How can that be a valid point, and then when I offer up factual evidence against it, it all of a sudden turn into "not the point at all"?!




I'm not a blind fan of anything. Like I said the first time, I like everyone who tells it like it is. I like people that aren't biased. I don't want to associate with people who's minds are so closed to possibility, that they lump themselves into segregated groups like "republicans" "democrats" "liberals" "conservatives" etc.

Time and time again, I've told you that I just want the facts that make you believe the way you do, so that I can better understand your stance. I'm seeking truth and knowledge, not opinion.

Bill O'Reilly at least makes a statement, and then clearly tells me not to take his word for it, but to challenge what he's saying by trying to find the absolute truth. I've never been able to discredit anything he's said. You call him a liar, but can't give me specific examples of when he lied, to who, or what about. So again, why should I believe you over him, if you haven't given me so much as a crumb?

write a book there alison.j/k

You want facts? Well sorry, I can't give particular facts or references to the statements I made and the claims I made towards what I've seen on the O'Reily factor.

I don't REMEMBER who he called a coward, but I know I've seen it happen, and I'm not about to wade through pages of documented transcripts from his show just to prove something I KNOW I've seen happen among the few times I've viewed his show. The same goes for the other instances in which I made claims that I witnessed against Bill O'Reily. As I said, i don't watch his show often, and I don't know remember what guest he called a coward, or what guest he throw rapid fire questions at, I know I've seen him do it though. I'm not going to waste hours of my life finding some text about a show I don't like just to prove something to someone I don't know. The proof is in the show. You claim to watch it often enough, I'm sure you will see it happen at some time or another. Again, I never claimed any of my statements were anything more then opinion, not once.

"Anyways, every negative thing I could ever say about Bill O'Riely has already been said beautifully in this article - http://www.maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=bill_oreilly" which, after reading "He doesn't really "tell it like it is", he gives his opinions as if they're facts" and "he's not a very good debater at all" tells me that you are about to back up your claims with solid facts. Does it not?"

No it does not, I meant no connection between the two sentances. Again, no facts anywhere. I simply listed Maddox article because it had to do with O'Reily and I found it humerous and raising some good points. Of course, I know that Maddox spends hours upon hours researching before he posts a quote somebody said, or makes a claim about somebody. If you want his recourses for his claims, I'm sure he'll give them to you. Simply email him, he's not one to make up stuff about someone or take statements out of content.

Again, you want facts as to why I believe the way I do, I gave them to you. I've seen O'Reily do what I've claimed I've seen him do. That is a fact to me. They may not be particular proof for you, if you want proof them you can spend YOUR time looking for that proof, since you're the one that cares about such. If I can't stand to watch his boring and monotonous show for more then 10 minutes, what makes you think I'll be able to stand going through hundreds of transcripts for that same shitty show?

And one more thing, where the hell in Jesus' buthole did you get the idea that I called him a liar? I never called O'Reily a liar. I said I thought he was one sided for the most part, nothing more. Do not claim that I said something when I did not. Again, a liar I never said, one sided I did. And I said that simply because I feel he sides with republicans more often then not. I can usually guess what his stance on something is before I even hear him give it, I do this by simply taking a generic republicans view and identifying it to him, and I'm usually right. (Key word is usually, don't go saying I said "always".

All of this O'Reily talk has reminded me of watching Ebert and Roeper were they reviewed a documtery on Fox News. I cant remember everything but they showed O'Reily interviewing a guy who had a family member who died in Sept 11. They said O'Reily was extremely pissed off at the guy and kept changing the words of what the guy said in the interview mostly to bash him whenever O'Reily brought it back up.

I'm not surprised if that's actually true. Sounds like something he'd do. He seems to think anyone who disagrees with him is a bad person and needs to be humiliated, even if they have good intentions for believing what they do.

Alison... Terri Gross doesn't interview people on other shows. She has her own. Which is, for that matter, far superior to The O'Reilly factor.

I can give you ONE reason why Bill O'Reily is bias and false and all the other claims that have been put against him.
He's on FOX.

There end of story. Fox Is THE most biased network on the air, being run by Bush's cousin of course.
FOX said that AL Sharpton was a raving loony and LOST black vote with his DNC speech.
Al Sharpton Is GOD!! He has the balls that noone else has. He responded to a direct bash that Bush made on him a week before, Eer heard about that attack? nope!!
Only Fox could make Tereisa (Sp?) Heinz Kerry saying "Shove it" Be worse that Cheny saying "Go F*** yourself" to congress.

FOX Is Bias, Every one ON FOX is bais. They are a Conservative media. End of story.

I think your just an angry liberal. and Tereisa Heinz is a phyco lol.

fox is biased though

Tereisa has more balls than most of the politicions (sp?).
Just because she's out spoken and believes in certian causes does not make her a phyco.