the real Bill O'Reilly...

[metalman]

the real Bill O'Reilly... perfect for rant and rave!!!

[*T*]

Re: the real Bill O'Reilly...

Who is this fool?

[metalman]

Re: the real Bill O'Reilly...

Who is this fool?

this fool is none other than the leader of the right wing no taxes, don't regulate, kill the poor, war mongering right wing as promoted on fox tv... bill o'reilly!

[jimmygu3]

Re: the real Bill O'Reilly...

When I bought my PMs from Blanchard, the sales rep boasted, "You may have seen our ads on Bill O'Reilly's show on Fox News!". I said, "No, and I won't hold that against you". He shut up and got down to the business at hand.

Here's a clip from Outfoxed with O'Reilly screaming at the son of a 9/11 victim, Jeremy Glick. I especially like the text comment from a youtube user who says, "haha, you and Roger Moore can make all the video's you want..." Say what you like, but I think Moonraker holds up... :p

[Slimprofits]

Re: the real Bill O'Reilly...

You can't mention O'Reilly without mentioning Hannity.

They both deserve the worst possible fate that is reserved for suckers of Satan's **** (borrowed from none other than Bill Hicks).

Listening to Hannity speak actually causes my blood pressure rise on the spot.

[jimmygu3]

Re: the real Bill O'Reilly...

Listening to Hannity speak actually causes my blood pressure rise on the spot.

That happens to me, too. He is so thoroughly ignorant, arrogant and offensive at all times. I tuned into his radio show one day and within 15 seconds he had said several ridiculous, obtuse and inflammatory things about NPR. Oh shoot, my BP's climbing right now....

[metalman]

Re: the real Bill O'Reilly...

That happens to me, too. He is so thoroughly ignorant, arrogant and offensive at all times. I tuned into his radio show one day and within 15 seconds he had said several ridiculous, obtuse and inflammatory things about NPR. Oh shoot, my BP's climbing right now....

don't like national communist radio, either. smarmy, smug, elitist... yuk. no better than the msm on housing bubble, etc.

[jimmygu3]

Re: the real Bill O'Reilly...

don't like national communist radio, either. smarmy, smug, elitist... yuk. no better than the msm on housing bubble, etc.

I'm no NPR junkie, in fact I rarely have time to listen to the radio, but I'll take smarmy, smug & elitist over ignorant, dogmatic fear mongering any day. IMO, left-leaning NPR atempts to give equal time to different points of view, and gives you much more than the soundbites the MSM does. In the polarized news world today, I find more balance on NPR than most other outlets. Many times I have said 'OK, I can see where the conservatives are coming from on this one' after hearing a bona fide expert have their say on NPR. The Fox MO is to get their viewers riled up saying 'The liberals are all crazy America-haters!'

I really don't want to turn this into a referendum on NPR, so that will be all I say.

Jimmy

[sadsack]

Re: the real Bill O'Reilly...

I value the rise of the right-wing media front, not because of its intrinsic value, but because of the valuable information it can reveal in conjuction with other sources.

Picture "The Truth" as the centroid of a triangle, whose vertices are defined by the various propaganda/viewpoints such as "Left," Right," and "Center/Other." With these three points, one can triangulate the inferred position of the "truth centroid" with much greater accuracy than if one had only two points of referece; e.g. MSM and NPR alone.

[FRED]

Re: the real Bill O'Reilly...

I value the rise of the right-wing media front, not because of its intrinsic value, but because of the valuable information it can reveal in conjuction with other sources.

Picture "The Truth" as the centroid of a triangle, whose vertices are defined by the various propaganda/viewpoints such as "Left," Right," and "Center/Other." With these three points, one can triangulate the inferred position of the "truth centroid" with much greater accuracy than if one had only two points of referece; e.g. MSM and NPR alone.

That is precisely the iTulip philosophy. We appreciate the free market fundamentalist utopians pushing hard to turn the US economy into a free-for-all without any institutions to maintain property rights and security against the socialists whose utopia is fairness by the hand of the State in every decision. The most functional societies operate, of course, in the midpoint between the two extremes.

Worldmap of Corruption

[Rajiv]

Re: the real Bill O'Reilly...

[center]Worldmap of Corruption

From the Wiki

Early CPIs used public opinion surveys, but now only "experts" are used.

Also, what is legally defined, or perceived, to be corruption differs between jurisdictions: a political donation legal in some jurisdiction may be illegal in another; a matter viewed as acceptable tipping in one country may be viewed as bribery in another.

Criticism

Corruption perception index has sometimes been criticized as the perception of a selected few since it ignores the perception of wider population and focuses on perception of the experts. Furthermore, some have opined that the index analyzes a "mere perception" and the method followed in preparing the index could not measure institutional corruption.

[c1ue]

Re: the real Bill O'Reilly...

It is interesting how the supposed 'Bush-ization' of certain media channels is thought to be new.

It is classic guerrilla tactics to force your opponent to extremes; doing so polarizes the populace and hopefully brings enough momentum to your side to make you credible.

Guerrillas can't survive if a large part of the population doesn't care, but guerrillas can prosper if they can convert the ratio to 70/30, or even 80/20 against them.

The genius of Rove - whether deliberate or not - was exactly in pushing the populace into picking a side.

[WDCRob]

Re: the real Bill O'Reilly...

I value the rise of the right-wing media front, not because of its intrinsic value, but because of the valuable information it can reveal in conjuction with other sources.

Picture "The Truth" as the centroid of a triangle, whose vertices are defined by the various propaganda/viewpoints such as "Left," Right," and "Center/Other." With these three points, one can triangulate the inferred position of the "truth centroid" with much greater accuracy than if one had only two points of referece; e.g. MSM and NPR alone.

I couldn't disagree with this model more. IMO the idea that the truth is available by consulting both sides of an argument, no matter how ridiculous one may be, is exactly what's led the mainstream media to adopt the policy of providing equal time and equal credence to both sides of any and all arguments.

The truth is often found on the fringes of an argument - for example, where iTulip previously resided in the vast ocean of information. Five years ago virtually no one was listening to the arguments here and the positions were unknown.

Yet IMO there's was a great deal of truth to be found here. And iTulip has gradually moved into the mainstream. Not by triangulating with what others were saying, but by being RIGHT without regard for what others are saying.

As for the MSM - it's vapid and useless if you're searching for truth. Its only function now with regards to policy discussions is to be an easily usable and entirely predictable tool to help reframe national discussions in your favor - regardless of whether you are right or truthful. Or as a guide to determine which side is "winning" at any given moment.

[FRED]

Re: the real Bill O'Reilly...

I couldn't disagree with this model more. IMO the idea that the truth is available by consulting both sides of an argument, no matter how ridiculous one may be, is exactly what's led the mainstream media to adopt the policy of providing equal time and equal credence to both sides of any and all arguments.

The truth is often found on the fringes of an argument - for example, where iTulip previously resided in the vast ocean of information. Five years ago virtually no one was listening to the arguments here and the positions were unknown. Or as a guide to determine which side is "winning" at any given moment.

Yet IMO there's was a great deal of truth to be found here. And iTulip has gradually moved into the mainstream. Not by triangulating with what others were saying, but by being RIGHT without regard for what others are saying.

As for the MSM - it's vapid and useless if you're searching for truth. Its only function now with regards to policy discussions is to be an easily usable and entirely predictable tool to help reframe national discussions in your favor - regardless of whether you are right or truthful.

That's our observation, too. Two year old iTulip heresy is now mainstream. The press is about "news" and news is whatever is happening. Another problem with the triangle model: The MSM are talking through a gigantic bullhorn while the truth comes out through a kazoo. Not an even match.

[jimmygu3]

Re: the real Bill O'Reilly...

I couldn't disagree with this model more. IMO the idea that the truth is available by consulting both sides of an argument, no matter how ridiculous one may be, is exactly what's led the mainstream media to adopt the policy of providing equal time and equal credence to both sides of any and all arguments.

The truth is often found on the fringes of an argument - for example, where iTulip previously resided in the vast ocean of information. Five years ago virtually no one was listening to the arguments here and the positions were unknown. Or as a guide to determine which side is "winning" at any given moment.

Yet IMO there's was a great deal of truth to be found here. And iTulip has gradually moved into the mainstream. Not by triangulating with what others were saying, but by being RIGHT without regard for what others are saying.

As for the MSM - it's vapid and useless if you're searching for truth. Its only function now with regards to policy discussions is to be an easily usable and entirely predictable tool to help reframe national discussions in your favor - regardless of whether you are right or truthful.

You nailed it, WDCRob. It's like hearing conflicting testimony from a criminal and a victim and deciding that the truth must lie somewhere in the middle. So-called journalists simply regurgitate both sides of a story without a bit of reasonable investigation to discover the truth, for fear that they will be labeled 'biased'.