Bill O'Reilly.

[Kaeb]

[YOUTUBE]f4Ald5f_nao[/YOUTUBE]

Why?



Disclaimer: This is not a Religion thread in any way shape form, this is a thread about the pile of excrement riddled with lunacy that is Bill O'Reilly.

 

[Shiuzu]

Oh Bill. You're so much better than this.

 

[Kaeb]

This guy went to ****ing Harvard.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

When Bill O'Reilly talks about religion, he gets nutty -- like his infamous "The tides go in, the tides go out. You can't explain that!" line.

Generally he's a fairly reasonable conservative. As far as FOX News goes, he's the thinnest kid at fat camp.

 

[Kaeb]

The Fascism comment just cut right through me.

 

[Shiuzu]

God, its sad seeing this. I agree with Jon Stewart. Bill is a smart guy who could be a lot better than this if he wasnt on am evil network. Sure he's never going to be Mother Theresa but better than this.

 

[Kaeb]

Don't get me started on Mother Theresa.

I just don't understand his completely lapse in logic, his logic makes about as much sense as the ending to Mass Effect 3.

 

[Shiuzu]

Don't get me started on Mother Theresa.

I just don't understand his completely lapse in logic, his logic makes about as much sense as the ending to Mass Effect 3.

His job isn't to be logical. His job is to be "Bill O'Reilly". And in that regard. He is wildly successful.

 

[Kaeb]

That's why I don't understand the majority of Fox News, a lot of the time they take the same stance that our own Mulluns does when it comes to discussions.

Whenever they're criticised for the handling of an issue or their expression of a belief, they cite their particular show as 'An Opinion Show', which by their insane logic means they're immune to criticism, which is just complete mental barbarism.

We need less opinions shows and more debate shows, opinion shows are all about preaching of ideologies, debate shows are about understanding and critical thought. Something we need more of as a society as a whole.

 

[Jacques]

[YOUTUBE]QquTUR9nbC4[/YOUTUBE]

:CHappy

 

[Shiuzu]

You mean when they have five to nine people in different rooms with their faces in a box and the person hawking a book gets more talk time than the rational person there?..yeah those always go over well.

 

[Kaeb]

No.

I mean REAL debate shows. The opposite of Crossfire. Debates on neutral territory with open minded audiences, or at least audiences with varied opinions.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

You mean when they have five to nine people in different rooms with their faces in a box and the person hawking a book gets more talk time than the rational person there?..yeah those always go over well.

That's not a debate show. That's how CNN pretends to have a debate. While debate shows are good, what we really need is analysis. Technically speaking, the mediocre way in which CNN does things is a debate. They have someone schilling for the left and someone schilling for the right, and maybe sometimes a more independent-minded person, and then the host who says "Great points of view. That's all the time we have today."

Any show where two opposite sides are debating one another absolutely has to have someone at the end break through the partisan fog. What networks like CNN think that means is to have no analysis at all, that the host can't say anything, but that's not true. Real TV journalists in the past -- Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, Mike Wallace, etc. -- took a stand, but it wasn't a liberal stand or a conservative stand. It was a stand on the truth.

That's what we need. No more spin. No more fake impartiality. Truth.

 

[Kaeb]

Exactly.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

If you want a good example of the type of show we need more of, watch Fareed Zakaria GPS on CNN. The show airs on Sundays.

 

[Kaeb]

[YOUTUBE]mfix_e1QnbM[/YOUTUBE]

I just want more of this^

Every week, every day if it were possible. With a myriad of issues concerning the world and human beings, a philophical, spiritual, political and scientific debate show with a balanced auidence, balanced teams and an intelligent and methodical moderator.

A lot of networks attempt this, but most fail.

 

[Logan_E]

I'm gonna guess most people here are liberals and/or atheists/agnostic? Judging from the conversation going on here. And for the record I generally don't like Bill O'Reilly.

 

[BLADE]

Oh Bill. You're so much better than this.

No he's not. He's a shill. By definition this is the equilibrium point between his principles and the profit he might derive. And those of you citing Harvard are giving me hives. Not only because I'm contractually obligated to hate HAHVAHD, but because Ivy League pedigrees don't really mean anything. There are statistical proclivities involved therein, but that's about it.

Kaeb: No. People who cite Christopher Hitchens as an honest and decent public intellectual are either ignorant of or whitewashing over his dishonesty and simple horribleness as a human being regarding the War on Terror. The man was a hack. All deaths diminish me, but his did not diminish the public discourse.

 

[Kaeb]

Kaeb: No. People who cite Christopher Hitchens as an honest and decent public intellectual are either ignorant of or whitewashing over his dishonesty and simple horribleness as a human being regarding the War on Terror. The man was a hack. All deaths diminish me, but his did not diminish the public discourse.

When did I cite Christopher Hitchens as an honest and decent public intellectual?

I posted a video of how a debate should properly be dictated based on the premise of the well thought out debate show that Bac and I were discussing.

While I've never been one to agree with ALL of the opinions of anyone on this planet, espeically Hitchens, I disagree with you on the notion of him being a hack. He was an excellent political journalist and I admire all of the work he did in regards to relief and Philisophical debate, there's no doubting the fact he was incredibly intelligent but he squandered that in his later years to appear on one to many talk shows were devolved into crass statements just because he believed he could.

But that's besides the point. We're not discussing Hitchens here.

 

[BLADE]

Yes we are. His credibility is implicitly mentioned and hung upon when you mention a balanced debate and link to one of his appearances. Choose a different clip, mention someone else, etc.

And yes. He is a hack. Consider his life's work. Whatever good he may have done is more than washed out by the water-carrying he did for authoritarians, warmongers and amoral power-worshipers. It's actually apt, since he's just like Bill O'Reilly. The difference is the former sold out whatever he may have believed for lucre whilst the latter did so in the service of his own arrogance and dogmatic belief in an idea. Ironic, considering his jeremiads against religion.