Bill O'Reilly is hilarious!

[nt250]

I'm not an O'Reilly fan but this made me laugh out loud because it's so true:

The Attack of the Hyper-Partisans
by Bill O'Reilly
Posted Sep 23, 2006

Are you a hyper-partisan? If so, stop it right now. These people are damaging America, and I'm calling them out.

First, a definition: A hyper-partisan is a person who does not seek the truth; rather, he or she tailors information to fit a preconceived political viewpoint. What is actually happening in the world is not important to these ideological zombies; it's all about reinforcing their core beliefs.

Thus, no matter what President Bush does, for example, he's wrong. There is absolutely nothing the man can do that would please the hyper-partisans who oppose him. On the opposite ideological page, Bill and Hillary Clinton are Satan's spawn. They are evil all day, every day.

How boring is this? If it were just a few Kool-Aid-drinking nuts, no one would care. But now you have entire media outlets that have gone hyper-partisan. Newspapers like The Boston Globe and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution are just about entirely left-wing. Yes, their circulations are in a free fall, but no journalistic enterprise should be hyper-partisan.

The infotainment industry and the Internet are also full of hyper-partisans because, unlike newspapers, you can make money with that approach, at least in conservative circles. The Air America radio network for the left tried to imitate the conservative template, but failed. That's because, while the right generally cheerleads for America, the far-left fanatics often despise their country and few want to hear that kind of vitriol.

Actor Sean Penn is a hyper-partisan. Last week on the Larry King program, Penn, as usual, was hammering the Bush administration when King actually challenged him by asking what was wrong with trying to spread democracy in the Middle East.

Penn replied the Bush administration doesn't even promote democracy in the USA. I thought that was a riot. Here's Penn ripping those in power on national TV and, at the same time, complaining there's not enough freedom here. If he tried that in Iran, his tongue would be in a museum.

Tom DeLay is a hyper-partisan. Republicans good, Democrats bad. Life simply cannot be that simple, can it? But for the hyper-partisans, it is. Nothing stands in the way of their belief system. Not facts, not provable truth.

To be honest, I believe there are more hyper-partisans on the left. Many conservatives are actually angry with the Bush administration about the unsecured southern border, enormous government spending and the stalemate in Iraq. That's why the president's poll numbers remain low. Some on the right who were behind him now have doubts about his stewardship. I don't see much independent thinking on the left.

It is hard to imagine Rosie O'Donnell, for example, becoming disenchanted with the liberal agenda no matter what. Somehow, I don't think Nancy Pelosi is going to reevaluate "taxing the rich," even if the country descended into a deep recession after more "progressive" tax laws were enacted. However, I could be wrong. And since I'm not a hyper-partisan, I can say that.

So let's start mocking all these hyper-partisans and begin to encourage critical thinking in America. It's much more interesting, and it's far better for the country because an acceptance of fact-based reality is crucial to solving problems.

And if you still don't believe me, imagine being stranded on a desert island with Howard Dean or Michael Savage. I'd hit the ocean. You'd get a fairer shake from the sharks.

 

[Gunny]

I'm not an O'Reilly fan but this made me laugh out loud because it's so true:

Define hillarious.

Personally, I see a lot of truth in what O'Reilly is saying. And no, I'm not on his bandwagon. I agree with him sometimes, other times not.

 

[jillian]

Define hillarious.

Personally, I see a lot of truth in what O'Reilly is saying. And no, I'm not on his bandwagon. I agree with him sometimes, other times not.

The only thing that makes the post "hillarious" is that O'Reilly is one of the worst perpetrators of the type of thing he's whining about.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I COMPLETELY DISAGREEWITH WHat he says, no matter what evidence or support he can show me. I AM NOT a hyper partisan.(nor did I have sex with that woman!)

 

[nt250]

Define hillarious.

Personally, I see a lot of truth in what O'Reilly is saying. And no, I'm not on his bandwagon. I agree with him sometimes, other times not.

I lauged at the line about Sean Penn's tongue and the last line about getting a better shake from the sharks.

The rest of it is all true.

 

[nt250]

The only thing that makes the post "hillarious" is that O'Reilly is one of the worst perpetrators of the type of thing he's whining about.

How often do watch his show or read his columns?

 

[RyzinEnagy]

The only thing that makes the post "hillarious" is that O'Reilly is one of the worst perpetrators of the type of thing he's whining about.

You have just made it obvious that you have never seen one of his shows from beginning to end.

:baby4:

 

[nt250]

You have just made it obvious that you have never seen one of his shows from beginning to end.

:baby4:

She also made it obvious that she doesn't recognize herself in that column.

 

[Dr Grump]

I've seen a few O'Reilly shows. On some, not all, he has definitely been hyper-partisan (using his own definition). When he inteviewed Michael Moore he was. To be fair, Michael Moore was being the same with the other POV.

 

[nt250]

I've seen a few O'Reilly shows. On some, not all, he has definitely been hyper-partisan (using his own definition). When he inteviewed Michael Moore he was. To be fair, Michael Moore was being the same with the other POV.

O'Reilly definately has an anti-left bias. But that's because he has an anti-bullshit bias and the left spews much more bullshit than the right does. He has a column at Human Events once in a while and like this one, they're usually a good read. (That's where I got this one. I forgot to post a link to it.)

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17175

His show on Fox, in my opinion, sucks. I can't watch any of the news channels anymore because they all look like really poorly designed web pages. But his show is really hard to sit through. He's probably one of the worst interviewers I ever seen and some of his guests seem to have no idea what they're doing there.

 

[dilloduck]

O'Reilly definately has an anti-left bias. But that's because he has an anti-bullshit bias and the left spews much more bullshit than the right does. He has a column at Human Events once in a while and like this one, they're usually a good read. (That's where I got this one. I forgot to post a link to it.)

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17175

His show on Fox, in my opinion, sucks. I can't watch any of the news channels anymore because they all look like really poorly designed web pages. But his show is really hard to sit through. He's probably one of the worst interviewers I ever seen and some of his guests seem to have no idea what they're doing there.

I think he has one of the better shows of it's kind out there and his comments on hyper-partisans is right on. They are more intersted in "winning" than telling the truth.

A hyper-partisan is a person who does not seek the truth

He leans to the right yet still tries to see the big picture and regularly jumps conservatives when he disagrees with them. The ones' who insist on hating him are hyper-partisans. It's a great term. I can't wait to read his new book "Culture Warriors".

 

[Avatar4321]

The only thing that makes the post "hillarious" is that O'Reilly is one of the worst perpetrators of the type of thing he's whining about.

I have to agree. which is exactly why i dont like OReilly. He is such a fake.

 

[glockmail]

This is a funny thread with the reactions of the hyper-partisan left proclaiming 'O'Reilly is a right-winger, therefore he sucks'. It is obvious that they either haven't watched his show, or at least not with the open minds that they claim to have.

I'm pretty hard-core conservative and I can tell you that at most O'Reilly is a 75 out of 100. But I respect the guy a lot for his refusal to accept spin and BS from either side.

He's dead on about this issue.

 

[jillian]

I have to agree. which is exactly why i dont like OReilly. He is such a fake.

He is at that. Finally... something we can agree on... not to mention the fact that he's a self-righteous perv..

Oh... and for the bitter chick twins... I've seen plenty of O'Reilly... I'd venture a guess that I've seen way more of him than either of you have seen of anyone you disagree with. I just tend to agree with Keith Olbermann and Jon Stewart that O'Reilly's a toon.

But keep on keepin' on. It's kinda amusing to watch you both do your little dance. But might I recommend anger management? Might do ya both some good.

 

[glockmail]

Anger?

 

[dilloduck]

Anger?

LOL ya--he's got the hyperpartisans coming out of the woodwork--How dare he cal lthem what they are. HEY BULLY---you got another adjective to call yourself!!

 

[trobinett]

Bill O'reilly is a "shock jock".

He can be entertaining, but mostly he's an embarrassment to journalist.

I use to watch him often, not much anymore.

 

[dmp]

He is at that. Finally... something we can agree on... not to mention the fact that he's a self-righteous perv..

Oh... and for the bitter chick twins... I've seen plenty of O'Reilly... I'd venture a guess that I've seen way more of him than either of you have seen of anyone you disagree with. I just tend to agree with Keith Olbermann and Jon Stewart that O'Reilly's a toon.

But keep on keepin' on. It's kinda amusing to watch you both do your little dance. But might I recommend anger management? Might do ya both some good.

You have the WORST Arguments, Jillian. Seriously...

"Yeah - Bill CAN'T Be good - cuz he's a PERV! Yeah! That's it"

lso Known as: Ad Hominem Abusive.
Description of Personal Attack

A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims.

Not all ad Hominems are fallacious. In some cases, an individual's characteristics can have a bearing on the question of the veracity of her claims. For example, if someone is shown to be a pathological liar, then what he says can be considered to be unreliable. However, such attacks are weak, since even pathological liars might speak the truth on occasion.

In general, it is best to focus one's attention on the content of the claim and not on who made the claim. It is the content that determines the truth of the claim and not the characteristics of the person making the claim.
Examples of Personal Attack

1. In a school debate, Bill claims that the President's economic plan is unrealistic. His opponent, a professor, retorts by saying "the freshman has his facts wrong."

2. "This theory about a potential cure for cancer has been introduced by a doctor who is a known lesbian feminist. I don't see why we should extend an invitation for her to speak at the World Conference on Cancer."

3. "Bill says that we should give tax breaks to companies. But he is untrustworthy, so it must be wrong to do that."

4. "That claim cannot be true. Dave believes it, and we know how morally repulsive he is."

5. "Bill claims that Jane would be a good treasurer. However I find Bill's behavior offensive, so I'm not going to vote for Jill."

6. "Jane says that drug use is morally wrong, but she is just a goody-two shoes Christian, so we don't have to listen to her."

7. Bill: "I don't think it is a good idea to cut social programs."
Jill: "Why not?"
Bill: "Well, many people do not get a fair start in life and hence need some help. After all, some people have wealthy parents and have it fairly easy. Others are born into poverty and..."
Jill: "You just say that stuff because you have a soft heart and an equally soft head."

 

[jillian]

Good to see you've totally missed the point, Darin. Kind of nice to have things like that which are totally predictable. :shocked1:

 

[dmp]

Good to see you've totally missed the point, Darin. Kind of nice to have things like that which are totally predictable. :shocked1:

Here you go again -


You make a silly comment which does NOTHING to prove your point of view (Bill being a 'perv'), when when called on it, you resort to another fallacy -

Description of Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
Examples of Red Herring

# "We admit that this measure is popular. But we also urge you to note that there are so many bond issues on this ballot that the whole thing is getting ridiculous."

# "Argument" for a tax cut:

"You know, I've begun to think that there is some merit in the Republican's tax cut plan. I suggest that you come up with something like it, because If we Democrats are going to survive as a party, we have got to show that we are as tough-minded as the Republicans, since that is what the public wants."

# "Argument" for making grad school requirements stricter:

"I think there is great merit in making the requirements stricter for the graduate students. I recommend that you support it, too. After all, we are in a budget crisis and we do not want our salaries affected."

Instead of defending your point of view; you're simply trying to insult me. Could be ad hominem, too.