The King of Cable B.S.

Discussion in 'Media' started by Flanders, Jan 17, 2013.

  1. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,541
    Thanks Received:
    631
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,575
    Good old Bill O’Reilly must believe his audience is lacking analytical skills altogether. Or maybe it’s just that every talking head lives by one rule: A verbal swift one is more effective than text. Listen to the King of Cable B.S. in last night’s talking points:


    Notice how he wrapped the B.S. in the obvious. A lot of what O’Reilly said was fairly innocuous. It was the government’s agenda that causes the harm. Good old Bill sneaked in gun registration and background checks which amounts to six of one and a half dozen of the other. That’s the same crap talking heads say on those liberal networks O’Reilly is always mocking. O’Reilly is worse because his crap reaches conservatives who never watch MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, and so on.

    And did you get the part about registering guns because automobiles are registered. The last time I looked the Bill of Rights did not have an Amendment protecting the Right to own an unregistered auto —— not to mention the fact that auto owners drive their cars all of the time, while millions and millions of law-abiding gun owners seldom shoot their guns in public.

    I’ll give O’Reilly the benefit of the doubt and say that he is well-intentioned. Like all do-gooders, O’Reilly’s good intentions ignore a fact: He does not understand what the hell he is advocating. First off, he cited self-defense without mentioning:


    Apparently, O’Reilly does not see danger in a tyrannical global government which is what gun control is all about. Or perhaps he simply believes a global government will be a good thing. Most of the people in the media are paid to believe it anyway.

    Question: Does the United Nations Small Arms Treaty not tell O’Reilly why the New World Order crowd must disarm American gun owners?

    Answer: It’s obvious they fear the day they have to send UN peacekeepers in to help the federal government put down a rebellion. Facing well-armed Americans can get mighty hairy for UN peacekeepers; more so if a substantial number of military units join the rebellion.


    Parenthetically, O’Reilly is an expert on A. Lincoln; so I wonder if he included this in his book:

    My point: Don’t take part in a global government and you won’t have to overthrow it.

    Finally, O’Reilly puts the knock on the UN from time to time. The problem is that he criticizes the UN for its weakness. I’ve never heard him say the US should withdraw from the UN. He has said that American military personnel should serve the UN if the president orders them to do so.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2013
  2. blastoff
    Offline

    blastoff Undocumented Reg. User

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    13,494
    Thanks Received:
    1,707
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    In a galaxy far far away...
    Ratings:
    +4,592
    Pretty early in the day to have your undies wedged so far up your crack, flanders.
     
  3. Katzndogz
    Offline

    Katzndogz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    65,659
    Thanks Received:
    7,418
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +8,337
    Someone is jealous of O'Reilly's popularity.
     
  4. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,541
    Thanks Received:
    631
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,575
    To blastoff & Katzndogz: Fair & Balanced O’Reilly stooges for background checks and registration and you make it about me. I’m flattered you think so highly of my humble efforts. Let me add one more item for your pleasure.

    Don’t hold your breath until O’Reilly calls for expunging the records of law-abiding citizens after they pass a background check.
     
  5. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,541
    Thanks Received:
    631
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,575
    Good lord! Is it possible I’m suffering from paralysis by analysis. Could abolishing the 2nd Amendment to save the children be nothing more than this cartoon:

    [​IMG]

     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2013
  6. jwoodie
    Offline

    jwoodie Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,756
    Thanks Received:
    1,287
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,904
    Bill O'Reilly is sometimes misinformed and often a blowhard, but your diatribe is nonspecific to the point of being irrelevant. Why don't you quote the statements with which you disagree, instead of relying on implication and innuendo?
     
  7. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,541
    Thanks Received:
    631
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,575
    To jwoodie: I posted the video link to O’Reilly actually saying the things I commented on. Anybody with a half of a brain that listened to the video could easily identify the points my commentary referred to. I could not have been more specific.

    I don’t mind anyone disagreeing with me, but I refuse to tailor my messages for people who are so stupid they need exact quotes spelled out for them. Bottom line: I assume the people who read my messages are intelligent enough to manage a topic no matter how I write it.

    Incidentally, I do provide exact quotations in text form when no video is available, although experience taught me they do not help anyone lacking in reading comprehension skills.
     

Share This Page