A Challenge For Bill O'Reilly

Kathianne said:
While I don't disagree with your ideals, I do wonder at trying to create a Nexis between War on Christmas and Darfur, or for that matter O'Reilly. I just don't get this straw man arguement.

He challenged him to report on something that actually matters rather than this war on Christmas bullshit that no one in their right mind should pay attention to or give a shit about.

What's the problem with that?

Remember this is the same idiot who spent hours and hours of programming on all these missing persons cases like the girl in Aruba. A total waste, an appalling example of what's wrong with the mainstream media.

Has O'Reilly talked about Corey Maye? How about Michael Yon? How about the State Dept. breaking federal law and aiding and abetting North Korean oppression by turning away refugees?

Or the North Koreans using Chinese know-how and American banks to counterfeit money?

Or the Democrats outrageous statements at anti-war rallies and meetings that aren't reported on in the mainstream media?

The man is a pompous idiot, as bad as most on the left.

In fact, I agree with Kristof... he's a leftist plant, made to look conservatives look bad.

Give me a real conservative like Cal Thomas or WFB anyday. Let's bring back Firing Line.
 
NATO AIR said:
He challenged him to report on something that actually matters rather than this war on Christmas bullshit that no one in their right mind should pay attention to or give a shit about.

What's the problem with that?

Remember this is the same idiot who spent hours and hours of programming on all these missing persons cases like the girl in Aruba. A total waste, an appalling example of what's wrong with the mainstream media.

Has O'Reilly talked about Corey Maye? How about Michael Yon? How about the State Dept. breaking federal law and aiding and abetting North Korean oppression by turning away refugees?

Or the North Koreans using Chinese know-how and American banks to counterfeit money?

Or the Democrats outrageous statements at anti-war rallies and meetings that aren't reported on in the mainstream media?

The man is a pompous idiot, as bad as most on the left.

In fact, I agree with Kristof... he's a leftist plant, made to look conservatives look bad.

Give me a real conservative like Cal Thomas or WFB anyday. Let's bring back Firing Line.

Eddie, how would that be different than me calling you out on spending all your energies on Darfur, when revisionist history is leading to a generation of students that don't know squat about how are nation was founded, philosophically, but can quote scripture and verse on the evils done. Why are you wasting your time on Darfur, when you could be connecting with these kids and helping them see what is good about the US?

Straw man. Darfur needs the voices in the dark. O'Reilly too serves a purpose, though he does bother me.
 
NATO AIR said:
He challenged him to report on something that actually matters rather than this war on Christmas bullshit that no one in their right mind should pay attention to or give a shit about.

What's the problem with that?

Remember this is the same idiot who spent hours and hours of programming on all these missing persons cases like the girl in Aruba. A total waste, an appalling example of what's wrong with the mainstream media.

Has O'Reilly talked about Corey Maye? How about Michael Yon? How about the State Dept. breaking federal law and aiding and abetting North Korean oppression by turning away refugees?

Or the North Koreans using Chinese know-how and American banks to counterfeit money?

Or the Democrats outrageous statements at anti-war rallies and meetings that aren't reported on in the mainstream media?

The man is a pompous idiot, as bad as most on the left.

In fact, I agree with Kristof... he's a leftist plant, made to look conservatives look bad.

Give me a real conservative like Cal Thomas or WFB anyday. Let's bring back Firing Line.
I think you place a little more blame on O'Reilly then maybe is deserved. People don't want to hear about Genocide. They want to hear how Christmas is being stolen from them, and how they can fight back. It's all ratings based. And that makes your right about your assertion of the media in this country, but it's a reflection of the populous, not of Bill O'Reilly. People eat that missing person shit up. Like french fries laced with cocaine.
 
The ClayTaurus said:
I think you place a little more blame on O'Reilly then maybe is deserved. People don't want to hear about Genocide. They want to hear how Christmas is being stolen from them, and how they can fight back. It's all ratings based. And that makes your right about your assertion of the media in this country, but it's a reflection of the populous, not of Bill O'Reilly. People eat that missing person shit up. Like french fries laced with cocaine.


I don't want to hear another word on Christmas being stolen or the Greta take on crime. I wish Fox would just do the news and analysis. Actually I wish all the news outlets would do that. :coffee3:
 
Kathianne said:
I don't want to hear another word on Christmas being stolen or the Greta take on crime. I wish Fox would just do the news and analysis. Actually I wish all the news outlets would do that. :coffee3:
I agree. It's too bad the heartstring stories will always dominate.
 
The ClayTaurus said:
I agree. It's too bad the heartstring stories will always dominate.

If the MSM is going to do heartstrings, let's start with the Iraqis and US military. Damn.
 
Kathianne said:
If the MSM is going to do heartstrings, let's start with the Iraqis and US military. Damn.
I definitely wouldn't mind some of those strings being tugged. And not in the "look at all the children who died" kind of way. Then again, we can't even get that kind of a story about ravaged cities in our own country...
 
The ClayTaurus said:
I definitely wouldn't mind some of those strings being tugged. And not in the "look at all the children who died" kind of way. Then again, we can't even get that kind of a story about ravaged cities in our own country...


Ya know Clay, I'm a single mom, 3 kids in university. My 84 old, 85 in 2 weeks, father lives with me. I make about 30k per year. I managed to give to 3 'Christmas Angels' this year, and still throw something in every Salvation Army kettle I pass.

So do many others, none of whom are looking for kudos. However, the MSM picks up on any calls for abortions to stop-because we don't care. They also cry about the 'innocent Iraqi children' being bombed, but fail to report on either the schools and hospitals or the multitude of aid forums set up by the military members.

Perhaps I misunderstood your post, but that is my initial reaction.
 
Kathianne said:
Ya know Clay, I'm a single mom, 3 kids in university. My 84 old, 85 in 2 weeks, father lives with me. I make about 30k per year. I managed to give to 3 'Christmas Angels' this year, and still throw something in every Salvation Army kettle I pass.

So do many others, none of whom are looking for kudos. However, the MSM picks up on any calls for abortions to stop-because we don't care. They also cry about the 'innocent Iraqi children' being bombed, but fail to report on either the schools and hospitals or the multitude of aid forums set up by the military members.

Perhaps I misunderstood your post, but that is my initial reaction.

Actually, I was kinda hoping for some rebuilding stories, something positive. *ducks* Don't hurt me.
 
Kathianne said:
I can do, have done so many times. i guess I did misunderstand you.

How about this:

http://www.indepundit.com/archive2/2005/12/victory.html#

That's cool, and I saw it when you posted earlier. But what people eat up are when you follow a family around, or do some personal story. It would be so cool to have had the foresite to find a family in Iraq right as the war started, and document the change in their life. I don't know if cultural differences or security concerns are the reason why this doesn't happen, but it would be cool to get an "on the ground" account that wasn't "well, I was in a tank today, and we move 100 miles and OOH! CHECK IT OUT BATTLE FOOTAGE!"

I think you and I are on the same side of the fence here, just that I apparently do a poor job of conveying it.
 
The ClayTaurus said:
That's cool, and I saw it when you posted earlier. But what people eat up are when you follow a family around, or do some personal story. It would be so cool to have had the foresite to find a family in Iraq right as the war started, and document the change in their life. I don't know if cultural differences or security concerns are the reason why this doesn't happen, but it would be cool to get an "on the ground" account that wasn't "well, I was in a tank today, and we move 100 miles and OOH! CHECK IT OUT BATTLE FOOTAGE!"

I think you and I are on the same side of the fence here, just that I apparently do a poor job of conveying it.
Read, from the beginning of the archives:
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
 
dmp said:
The best gifts to charity are done anonymously. I knew a couple who'd take out money orders in the name of somebody who was needy. They would mail the $ from different places around the country and only include a typed note:

"Here's a gift. Please use this as God directs you!"

Those people gave for the right reasons.

Giving to EVER mention it to anyone - much less to millions of people - is likely giving for the 'wrong' reasons.

While I agree with you for most of us, someone in the spotlight like OReilly has to defend himself when he's called out. Why? Because if he doesn't respond, then the harpie making the accusation just becomes more vocal in his/her accusation unless or until silenced. If Bill doesn't respond, the accuser then claims the lack of response is due to his being right.
 
GunnyL said:
While I agree with you for most of us, someone in the spotlight like OReilly has to defend himself when he's called out. Why? Because if he doesn't respond, then the harpie making the accusation just becomes more vocal in his/her accusation unless or until silenced. If Bill doesn't respond, the accuser then claims the lack of response is due to his being right.
What would the accuser have been "right" about in this instance? He didn't claim that Bill didn't donate to charity, and he certainly didn't claim that he donated more than Bill.
 
The ClayTaurus said:
What would the accuser have been "right" about in this instance? He didn't claim that Bill didn't donate to charity, and he certainly didn't claim that he donated more than Bill.

Play your literalist games on someone else, bub. The implication does the damage it's intended to do without specification. Reeled your ass in pretty-damned quick, didn't it?
 
NATO AIR said:
I think O'Reilly is a pompous ass who should be considered an embarassment to the conservative community. He is not a conservative, he's a prima donna. He's never been in danger, never risked his life to report a story, never shown anything more than a selfish greed for his own ego and his own needs.

Kristof is a liberal journalist/columnist for the NYT, he doesn't much like Bush, he was against the war in Iraq, etc etc. Nevertheless, aside from relative nonsense he tends to spout about social issues in the US (though he takes some interesting positions, such as advocating using DDT again, gun rights, freedom of religious expression, school choice, etc etc), he is absolutely crystal clear on issues of human rights; Darfur, Zimbabwe, Burma, human trafficking/slavery, North Korea, Colombia, Iran (though he spent too much time with dissidents and ordinary Iranians to understand and report on the evils of the regime), Syria, Egypt, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, China, etc etc. His record blows O'Reilly's out of the water on this matter.

As Cal Thomas rightfully noted, this "war on Christmas/counter war" is nonsense. We Christians have far better things to do (like say, challenging our nation's leadership on its refusal to get serious about Darfur, Zimbabwe, Burma, North Korea, etc etc, helping stop the spread of AIDS across the world and spread the Gospel instead, etc etc) than argue over this nonsense.

Yet Fox and co. runs more than 100 segments on the war on Christmas, with perhaps one report on all the aforementioned hell-holes in the world, and perhaps one more report on the good deeds Christians are doing around the world.

Bullshit. Utter bullshit. Good on Kristof to call O'Reilly's bluff. He lacks the moral courage, the moral clarity and the professionalism to start reporting on a place like Darfur or North Korea.

And the American people who watch his show, unlike those of the USMB (who happen to be quite well-educated about these matters and the events in the world), remain ignorant and unknowing about these pointless tragedies.

I don't think it is nonsense at all. It's the epitome of the culture war.

And how is paying attention to Darfur going to make us "better Christians" if we can't even call our Christian holiday by the proper name of Christmas or have the freedom to express religion while the ACLU continues to rip the crosses off our memorials? I think Kristof is deliberately attempting to sidetrack this serious issue and he is showing his secular bias by attempting to make Christians feel guilty about wanting to celebrate Christmas instead of "winter holiday"...as if that wasn't a "worthy" issue for O'Reilly to talk about. Kristof is deliberately attempting to deflect this important issue because the culture war about Christmas is being WON by O'Reilly and he and his liberal cohorts are angry about that. They don't like being exposed for the biased secular left-wing ideologues that they really are. The NYT and others really HATE O'Reilly because he has the temerity to fight back against their lies and misrepresentations (and not just on this issue).

"In round four of their heavyweight battle, Bill O'Reilly hit back at Nicholas Kristof on Monday, calling him "absolutely clueless" and adding that the New York Times columnist has "no idea what is happening in the country." Good for him. :clap1:


http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001700733
 
Excellent discussion (in which my narrow focus on Darfur didn't manage to take away the good flow of ideas and points... sorry).

- They say people eat up the missing person and scandal cases, but I think its more the sensationalism and out n out rush for wide profit margains that caused this to suddenly be the focus of the news.
News shows and magazines sold well for decades based on good, solid reporting. Good, solid reporting still sells (look at the blogosphere). Somehow, somewhere, a disconnect where reality became optional and perception became everything happened and its destroying the news organizations from within (yes, even FOX).

Look at CNN's reporting of the tsunami last year. Now you can say "oh Anderson Cooper" was the star and that's why ratings were good, but in reality, it was CNN's choice of good, on the scene reporting with a mix of human interest (and if any event demanded it, the tsunami and 9/11 were the two events where human interest stories deserved our attention) that trumped Fox and MSNBC's sensationalist (oh the model whose boyfriend died, oh the horror) spin.

The same could go with the military, but we know how hostile the MSM is to the military. O'Reilly, on the other hand, is not. This was the year the US military should perhaps be proudest of itself since 1945. We saved hundreds of thousands of lives after the tsunami, we're saving tens of thousands in Pakistan from starvation and cold, we've learned from our mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan and are busy applying lessons learned on the ground and experiencing success with more stable governments, elections and more optimistic people. The military came in and rescued the entire Katrina relief effort from the bumbling stupidity of the LA leadership and FEMA/DHS. How about any number of countless human interest stories that are involved with all these efforts?

Or a rant and rage campaign directed at the bastards who slander our troops and then hide behind "my statements were misunderstood, misprinted" excuse.

Instead of sensationalist shit like "war on Christmas", how about "war on Christians, or war on religious freedom" that is happening all around the world. Ex. to be a Christian, a Muslim or a Buddhist in N. Korea is to sign your own death warrant.

I mean, damn.
 
But who's to say that what starts out as a war on Christmas won't someday slide it's way into a war on Christians? Full blown intolerance and persecution often start in small ways.
 
ScreamingEagle said:
I don't think it is nonsense at all. It's the epitome of the culture war.

And how is paying attention to Darfur going to make us "better Christians" if we can't even call our Christian holiday by the proper name of Christmas or have the freedom to express religion while the ACLU continues to rip the crosses off our memorials? I think Kristof is deliberately attempting to sidetrack this serious issue and he is showing his secular bias by attempting to make Christians feel guilty about wanting to celebrate Christmas instead of "winter holiday"...as if that wasn't a "worthy" issue for O'Reilly to talk about. Kristof is deliberately attempting to deflect this important issue because the culture war about Christmas is being WON by O'Reilly and he and his liberal cohorts are angry about that. They don't like being exposed for the biased secular left-wing ideologues that they really are. The NYT and others really HATE O'Reilly because he has the temerity to fight back against their lies and misrepresentations (and not just on this issue).

"In round four of their heavyweight battle, Bill O'Reilly hit back at Nicholas Kristof on Monday, calling him "absolutely clueless" and adding that the New York Times columnist has "no idea what is happening in the country." Good for him. :clap1:


http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001700733

We can't fight every war, we can't be everywhere.

This is as true a valid excuse for not getting involved with Darfur as not getting involved with the culture war.

I believe in intelligent conservatism, call me elitist or snobbish, but I think its gotten us a lot further than O'Reilly and Limbaugh's "rant and rage" brand.

Ronald Reagan practiced it, to a large degree George Bush does as well. (intelligent conservatism)

Jesse Helms is a perfect example of this. Jesse always caught flack for his "rant and rage" tactics in the Senate. I believe Jesse could have gotten even further than he did (in making serious progress in changing the way Americans view the UN (removing its holier than thou halo), forcing the State Dept. to join the rest of the US government and implement the president's policies, not their own and raising needed questions about affirmative action, abortion and education that still resonate today).

Now I say this because Jesse was never properly appreciated or respected by most (including many Republicans), because of his "words" and his infamous "rants and raves" about the UN, State Dept., Clinton etc etc. Behind this wall of infamy was a cunning mind of sharp analysis, original ideas and down-home common sense. Jesse was his most effective when he used factual evidence, good analysis and linkage to get his many opponents and enemies to bend to his will or to reform or change.

In the end, he was a master of both styles; but his legacy and his effectiveness were damaged by his inability to table the "rant and rage" enough of the time.

So go ahead, cheer O'Reilly, he's ranting and raging and raving and he's whipping up the folks, just like a good demagogue, Christian, Muslim, Communist or Nazi. He's perfect for the role, though its a shame that he's not an authentic firebrand, just a guy who plays on TV and the radio.

Rather than facts and figures, analysis and informed opinion, he offers ranting, raving, preaching and bullshit. Perfect for the short-attention span minded, but poor for the people who actually want the facts.

Again, WFB, George Will or Cal Thomas any day over crap like O'Reilly.
 

Forum List

Back
Top