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.
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.
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.
__________________
Last edited by BackFire on Aug 1st, 2004 at 12:07 AM
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.
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.
__________________
Last edited by *Alison* on Aug 1st, 2004 at 05:28 AM
KMC Community Forums
Jul 29th, 2004 06:57 PM
Attachment: 
