| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| susquesus |
Posted - November 03 2003 : 11:42:31 PM
Anyone have anything to say about Bill O'Reilly of Fox News Channel? |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| susquesus |
Posted - October 26 2004 : 1:20:53 PM
Anybody have any thoughts on Mr. O'Reilly's recent legal troubles? Supposedly he was giving a female co-worker unsolicited phone sex. Here's a link:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris1.html |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - December 12 2003 : 08:17:24 AM
quote:
Of course I don't have to know what the latest in the Kobe Bryant trial is either
Now that would make an interesting thread. My personal opinion is that this kid (Mr. Bryant) is getting a 'railroad job'. Judging from experience, it looks to me like you have a "victim" looking for fame/an excuse/a big payday and a District Attorney looking for fame/an excuse/to hang a celebrity. Any or all of the above would fit. I only hope that the jury sees through the paper thin state's case.
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
| susquesus |
Posted - December 11 2003 : 9:28:18 PM
I miss O'Reilly. I haven't seen a good brow beating or rant in far too long. I miss him complaining about how his newborn child revolts him, all of the golden O'Reilly moments are now out of my reach. I've been trying to find him on the radio with no luck, anyone know what hours he's usually on? I gave up cable TV a few weeks ago and I'm going through news withdrawal. Now all I have is public radio and the BBC. Of course I don't have to know what the latest in the Kobe Bryant trial is either, so I guess it's not all bad.
|
| Highlander |
Posted - December 06 2003 : 12:51:13 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Anthony
Sggt. who?... never heard of ya,PAL.. .whats the matter ? HON!...dont give me a Hard time and say im speakin of you.............................you who?it for another user!.
PROVE IT!
and keep going on giving other useres a hard time leave me out of it..!as rich[posted in defense of ed n another, user, too.. yr angry posts to 'nice' ed ! are sad..AND AGIAN I NEVER HEARD OF YOU! SO MOVE ON!
And yes,you certainly are different one Anthony.As usual,you have plenty of nothing to say in this forum. |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - November 10 2003 : 11:11:14 PM
Then it must be me, oh well. Either way, it is good to see you back in the rotation, Anthony. I hope all is well with you.
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
| richfed |
Posted - November 10 2003 : 7:36:37 PM
It's me, right, Anth??? Sorry - not the same guy I was back in 1975.
Well, when you get through with your vomit/lol combo, consider this ... I read it someplace:
The World is Full of ALL Sorts of Differrent people with many Lifestyles...Its OK to Embrace All in Life is it NOT? |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - November 09 2003 : 12:39:50 AM
Diana asks:
quote:
Getting back to O'Reilly or tangents thereof, what about Sean Hannity or Michael Savage?
Personally, I think that Sean Hannity is an excellent interviewer. He is far more conservative than O'Reilly, but he lets his guest answer the questions posed to them. Mr. Hannity is of the school of thought, "Give them enough rope to hang themselves", and it works.
Mr. Savage is another creature altogether, his mannerisms make O'Reilly look congenial by comparison. If you disagree with him in the least, you are belittled and cut-off without so much as a logical argument preceeding it. Mr. Savage would have made an excellent college campus liberal activist, he uses the same bullying double-speak tactics (approved by communist operatives, since the time of Marx). That is, if you tell the same lie enough, it becomes the truth.
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
| Highlander |
Posted - November 08 2003 : 3:05:00 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Diana
Getting back to O'Reilly or tangents thereof, what about Sean Hannity or Michael Savage?
Diana
Hannity is another one who could have served in the Gulf War but didn't.He was one of the most vocal of the chickenhawks in wanting to go to war in Iraq.On www.awolbush.com they offer a deck of playing cards for sale(like the ones featuring Saddam Hussein & his regime)except that they are of all of the chickenhawks in the Bush administration and the media.What is really entertaining is that each card features a photo of the offender,the war that they avoided,and the lame excuse that they used. |
| Diana |
Posted - November 08 2003 : 2:03:17 PM
Getting back to O'Reilly or tangents thereof, what about Sean Hannity or Michael Savage?
Diana |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - November 06 2003 : 6:45:55 PM
No problem, Doc. Contrary to popular myth spead by English Soldiers, us Highlanders are house broken. You just need to let us out when we scratch at the door.
As far as the boys, well I am assuming that they both have fallen back to their respective rally points and are going to do a quick LACE check before reengaging. They are both good guys.
|
| Doc M |
Posted - November 06 2003 : 5:04:43 PM
Oh, Sarge -- I never worry about boys or their toys! *snort! snort!*
Just don't get blood on my tasteful Oriental carpets, is all I ask!
Doc M |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - November 06 2003 : 4:45:38 PM
Doc, don't worry yourself about the guys, they will sort things out. It is nothing unusual, it is just that men do things like this and contrary to contemporary thought, it is normal and healthy. There are times I have to remind Lady Munro that men and women are hardwired differently (A fact that Time Magazine only discovered in the mid 1990's). Women are more emotionally driven, and thus take 'personal' attacks, well, more personal. Men generally hurl insults at one another, in both jest and attack. As soon as the argument is over, generally both parties can be found at the bar for another round of beer laughing over what an hour ago they were ready to go to blows about.
It is labeled by some Feminists as overly agressive behavior, but it is that agressive side that insures the rights of the not-so-agressive are protected. Could you imagine a military force made of people who want to always talk things over in a civilized manner, even after their countrymen are attacked by a foreign force? Needless to say, if our country was like that, we would not lead the world in supporting the rights of women or minorities (Ethnic, Religious, etc.), because we would have lost our sovereignty to some backward 'overly agressive' nation the likes of Nazi Germany, Fascist Japan, Communist Russia, or any Islamic Nation of your choosing.
Both these guys are good troops, and behave normally for combat veterans. There are times that I 'sound-off', I know "say it isn't so", but it is normal, healthy and very male.
Bill, Highlander is a good friend of mine and we even argue over the same issue (as you already know, my opinion is very similar to your own). Ed, Bill is a good guy and he is also someone who has 'been there and done that', so his opinion also has value and merit, like your own. This all aside, lets go to our respective corners count to ten and come back out, on another thread of course (no need to confuse the casual reader). Whaddya say, men?
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
| Doc M |
Posted - November 06 2003 : 3:29:34 PM
Boys, boys, boys! Don't make kindly old Doc M get out the hoses for
her patented Soothing Enema Treatment! I'm still growing my chin hairs
out from the last conflagration!
Doc M |
| richfed |
Posted - November 06 2003 : 1:31:07 PM
There you go again ... c'mon, Ed, this will only bring about more fireworks or else someone stomping off angrily. It does nothing to further constructive conversation. Please see this topic: IMPORTANT: The Lion's Den Etiquette!
And, of course there's something you can do ... just don't respond. Tit for tat goes nowhere & gets nothing ... save maybe another tit [pardon me, ladies] or another tat [whatever that is]. I go through this pretty much non-stop at home with my kids ... you guys both served & are both adults, right? Surely you can do better! |
| Highlander |
Posted - November 06 2003 : 12:45:34 PM
quote:
Originally posted by richfed
Waaaaay off topic lads ... Want to insult one another? Better suited for E-mail than here. Want to talk Palestine/Israel? A new thread is in order ...
This is supposed to be Bill O'Reilly! Thanks ...
I was perfectly willing to stay on the topic Rich.However this guy wants to tell everybody how much of a war hero he is(or thinks he is).My guess is that the only fighting that he saw was in the PX for a pack of smokes.I've had my say about O'Reilly.If somebody else wants to go off topic about U.S.foreign policy or whatever,what can I do?
|
| SgtMunro |
Posted - November 06 2003 : 11:06:26 AM
Wow, for a change I'm not to blame. Palastine/Israel Thread? That could be fun, especially going into the history of those two. Whaddya say Bill? Wanna lead off? "Jumper, in the door! Go, go, go!!!"
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
| richfed |
Posted - November 06 2003 : 05:22:01 AM
Waaaaay off topic lads ... Want to insult one another? Better suited for E-mail than here. Want to talk Palestine/Israel? A new thread is in order ...
This is supposed to be Bill O'Reilly! Thanks ... |
| Bill R |
Posted - November 06 2003 : 03:46:29 AM
Well, Highlander, I've tried very hard NOT to be insulting. Rather than make assumptions about your background, I had the courtesy to ask about yours. Neither do I make insulting comments (repeatedly) about what you know or what you do not know. Nor did I make assumptions about your military service or lack of it. I asked.
For my courtesy I get a "well if you must know".
I see rational debate is not to be with you. You'd rather spout the Palestinian line, excuse their terrorism, and insult those who disagree with you.
And I'll let it go at that. I will tell you though, that my hunch was right. My thought, at your thumping your chest so strongly about my assumed lack of service or willingness to serve (and willingness to put my ass on the line for what my mouth was saying) plus your rather parochial perceptions about the politics of that whole region, was "support troop not grunt" and no formal education in the region. The line troops don't brag. They want to forget what they saw. The support troops are the ones who thump their chest and want everybody to know they were there, and find a way to work it into every conversation.
And the Palestinians, my friend, have been more abused and more used by their "friends" the Jordanians, the Syrians, the Saudis, The Lebanese, the Egyptians etc than ever by the Jews. The Palestinians are "homeless" because each of those nations that gave them refuge realized they were a pain in the ass and kicked them out, and incited them to split with the Israelis in the FIRST place with promises that the Arab League would quickly destroy Israel and give them the whole of Palestine.
They failed. Ever since then, the Palestinians have only ever been a foil for those countries, and a thorn in their side.
End of discussion on things with you. Don't like your insulting attitude. Inflict it on somebody else, LEG. |
| Highlander |
Posted - November 06 2003 : 02:18:35 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Highlander
quote:
Originally posted by SgtMunro
[quote] you look at Desert Storm,the media was restricted by the military and their control of information.Alan Colmes asked last night why this administration bans media coverage of the dead soldiers being brought back from Iraq to Dover AFB.Is it because it doesn't want the public to see the real cost of the war?
Well Captain, I think that it has more to do with not wanting family members seeing their dead son/daughter, husband/wife or brother/sister paraded out on CNN, MSNBC, Fox or the "big" three, before the military has a chance to notify them in person. Personally, I agree with that policy, please allow the families the right to mourn in private, their deceased family member paid for that right.
Your Most Humble Servant,
[/quote
Oh,I don't think that anyone in the higher levels of government gives a rat's patootie about the surviving family members. Walt tells me that after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon,all dependents had 30 days to clear out of base housing.Pretty cold & heartless if you asked me.Nowadays,when a serviceman(or woman)makes the ultimate sacrifice,their survivors get a lousy $6,000.00 that is taxable.
And how come O'Reilly doesn't have anything to say about that?Sheesh,even Geraldo was over there getting shot at. |
| Highlander |
Posted - November 06 2003 : 02:15:30 AM
quote:
Originally posted by SgtMunro
[quote] you look at Desert Storm,the media was restricted by the military and their control of information.Alan Colmes asked last night why this administration bans media coverage of the dead soldiers being brought back from Iraq to Dover AFB.Is it because it doesn't want the public to see the real cost of the war?
[quote]Well Captain, I think that it has more to do with not wanting family members seeing their dead son/daughter, husband/wife or brother/sister paraded out on CNN, MSNBC, Fox or the "big" three, before the military has a chance to notify them in person. Personally, I agree with that policy, please allow the families the right to mourn in private, their deceased family member paid for that right.
Your Most Humble Servant,
[/quote
Oh,I don't think that anyone in the higher levels of government gives a rat's patootie about the surviving family members.Walt tells me that after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon,all dependents had 30 days to clear out of base housing.Pretty cold & heartless if you asked me.Nowadays,when a serviceman(or woman)makes the ultimate sacrifice,their survivors get a lousy $6,000.00 that is taxable.
|
| Highlander |
Posted - November 06 2003 : 01:34:09 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Bill R
"Never said that I didn't like Jews.The first terrorist attacks in the region were the result of people like Menachim Begin attacking British soldiers who were there to keep the peace,not Palestinians.Even a mouse will fight back when conered.My patriotism is not an issue here.O'Reilly's and Limbaugh's are.I've been to the Middle East,and drew Imminent Danger Pay.Don't consider myself liberal or conservative.Has US foreign policy placed us in somebody's crosshairs?Yes,I believe so.If you've never been to S.W.Asia,don't pass yourself off as an expert on the region."
Says Highlander.
My first response got lost as I had not logged in properly, and probably good that it was lost.
You may not be anti-semitic Highlander, but your quoting all the usual Palestinian and anti-semitic rationales as to the problems in the Middle East and as to our problems - including 9-11 apparently -goes far in leading me to wonder.
As to the British being there only to keep the peace....read up on that. While they had the mandate, they actively allowed the Arabs to arm while working very hard to keep the Israelis unarmed...the closer it got to that magic day of nationhood (for the Israelis) the more they leaned toward the Arabs and closed their eyes to what was going on, but worked diligently to disarm the Israelis. Lots of reasons for that of course. British interests in the oil fields which had not been nationalized as yet, but there were movements to do so. Their innate anti-semitism - not rising to the level of others in Europe, but there none the less. To the British, both the Jews and the Arabs were "bloody wogs" but the Arabs were useful "bloody wogs". British occupiers aren't always the "peace keepers" they pretend to be....ask the Irish and the Indians about that. Interestingly enough, there was a Jewish battalion fighting with the British in North Africa during WWII while the Arabs pretty much sided with the Germans and identified with the German view vis a vis the Jew. But when it came time to impartially administrate Palestine the British were much more pro-Arab despite the allegiances of WWII.....oil wins out again.
You say your patriotism isn't at issue. Patriotism and military service arent at issue with Rush or O'Reilly either. That is not a requirement in this country to speak one's mind nor to have their opinion voiced. Sometimes I wish it was, but not really. Neither having military service under your belt, nor the lack of it, has anything to do with the validity of the opinion voiced. Nor with a proof of love of country.
Now, addressing the fact that our policies have put us in the cross hairs.......so what? Are we to now base our national interests and policies on whether or not it puts us in somebody's cross hairs, whether or not somebody is going to be mad at us, whether or not somebody might want to hurt us if we don't play THEIR game? If so, then we have totally lost our moral compass as a nation and our strength of character. Not to mention, we were in their sights anyway, they hate us anyway, and only have contempt for us if we DO give in to their demands and threats.
As to the last part of your nice little quote there......the part about my not being an expert on that region. First you allude I am one of your "chickenhawks" who stay at home while sending others in harms way and thumping my chest. I answer that, and in answering it also tell you a little about my "chickenhawk" resume. You must have skimmed past that post. Go up and read it again.
You apparently were in Desert Storm. Thank you. You served then. You must have missed the part that I was over there too. Go back up and read it. So tell me, what was your military occupation specialty over there? Rank? Unit? Job? Where did you get your expertise and kn |
| Bill R |
Posted - November 06 2003 : 12:07:37 AM
"Never said that I didn't like Jews.The first terrorist attacks in the region were the result of people like Menachim Begin attacking British soldiers who were there to keep the peace,not Palestinians.Even a mouse will fight back when conered.My patriotism is not an issue here.O'Reilly's and Limbaugh's are.I've been to the Middle East,and drew Imminent Danger Pay.Don't consider myself liberal or conservative.Has US foreign policy placed us in somebody's crosshairs?Yes,I believe so.If you've never been to S.W.Asia,don't pass yourself off as an expert on the region."
Says Highlander.
My first response got lost as I had not logged in properly, and probably good that it was lost.
You may not be anti-semitic Highlander, but your quoting all the usual Palestinian and anti-semitic rationales as to the problems in the Middle East and as to our problems - including 9-11 apparently -goes far in leading me to wonder.
As to the British being there only to keep the peace....read up on that. While they had the mandate, they actively allowed the Arabs to arm while working very hard to keep the Israelis unarmed...the closer it got to that magic day of nationhood (for the Israelis) the more they leaned toward the Arabs and closed their eyes to what was going on, but worked diligently to disarm the Israelis. Lots of reasons for that of course. British interests in the oil fields which had not been nationalized as yet, but there were movements to do so. Their innate anti-semitism - not rising to the level of others in Europe, but there none the less. To the British, both the Jews and the Arabs were "bloody wogs" but the Arabs were useful "bloody wogs". British occupiers aren't always the "peace keepers" they pretend to be....ask the Irish and the Indians about that. Interestingly enough, there was a Jewish battalion fighting with the British in North Africa during WWII while the Arabs pretty much sided with the Germans and identified with the German view vis a vis the Jew. But when it came time to impartially administrate Palestine the British were much more pro-Arab despite the allegiances of WWII.....oil wins out again.
You say your patriotism isn't at issue. Patriotism and military service arent at issue with Rush or O'Reilly either. That is not a requirement in this country to speak one's mind nor to have their opinion voiced. Sometimes I wish it was, but not really. Neither having military service under your belt, nor the lack of it, has anything to do with the validity of the opinion voiced. Nor with a proof of love of country.
Now, addressing the fact that our policies have put us in the cross hairs.......so what? Are we to now base our national interests and policies on whether or not it puts us in somebody's cross hairs, whether or not somebody is going to be mad at us, whether or not somebody might want to hurt us if we don't play THEIR game? If so, then we have totally lost our moral compass as a nation and our strength of character. Not to mention, we were in their sights anyway, they hate us anyway, and only have contempt for us if we DO give in to their demands and threats.
As to the last part of your nice little quote there......the part about my not being an expert on that region. First you allude I am one of your "chickenhawks" who stay at home while sending others in harms way and thumping my chest. I answer that, and in answering it also tell you a little about my "chickenhawk" resume. You must have skimmed past that post. Go up and read it again.
You apparently were in Desert Storm. Thank you. You served then. You must have missed the part that I was over there too. Go back up and read it. So tell me, what was your military occupation specialty over there? Rank? Unit? Job? Where did you get your expertise and knowlege of the politics, history, etc of the region? During your service?
I admit I am no expert in the region. If I was, I'd probably have a government job in |
| Bill R |
Posted - November 05 2003 : 11:13:39 PM
Well, I have always thought, and still do, that the print media is the REAL media. You know that. In the beginning as TV news grew, it was okay to get snippets and overviews of news. Back that up with fuller information from the print media. And yes, there are newspapers with agendas or political bias too.....but at least they have to spend some time on their articles and their research and WRITE it out for you, thereby giving you actual information. I hate that most of America now depends on the information mainly from slanted sound bites.
Atta girl Christina. You print journalists ARE journalists. The rest are just talking heads reading from a teleprompter hired for their bias, their presentability, and their modular voices.
IMHO. |
| Christina |
Posted - November 05 2003 : 10:50:40 PM
Bill, I wasn't being defensive at all toward you personally. I just like to clarify WHAT branch of the media I'm in because in my day to day life, I encounter an awful LOT of folks who paint "the media" as one big monolith who all think and feel the same way. (I'm not talking personally about you, either.) I just like to let people know WHAT section of the media I'm in -- print -- mainly because I think print these days (at least some of it) has more integrity than most of the drivel -- from the right AND the left -- that gets spewed on the airwaves. I also wanted folks here who might not know me to know I cover religion because -- thankfully-- my beat puts me OUT of most of the political fighting and I'm very thankful to whatever divine power orchestrated that FOR me!
Bill, I don't have any problem with ANYBODY criticizing any part of the media, from whatever segment. I was just voicing my own personal perspective on two guys who, whatever their political perspective, annoy me with the way they handle themselves. As I noted, I'd dislike Reilly and Rush's style as much if they were flaming left wingers.
As for the way media USED to be, I have some perspective on that because my dad has been in media and journalism in one form or another since 1946. I know that in this corporate driven world things are a LOT different than they used to be. Most of the change hasn't been good. But I do like to try to let people know, as well, that not all of us in the "fourth estate" (at least the print side of it) should be thought of as one huge left wing wall of opinion. In South Carolina, for instance, four out of five of the main daily newspapers supported Bush in the last election and all five support the war in Iraq completely.
It's just all a matter of opinion...
Christina
quote:
Christina, why is it whenever I criticize the mainstream media and NAME them, you seem to come out swinging like I have attacked the print media and you in particular. I don't mean to be defensive, but Christina dear I was a journalist long before you entered the profession. It is a much different media today than it was 30 years ago. Firstly, print media and audio-visual media has been absorbed and is now controlled by a relatively few, or single, organizational entitity. That's bad right there. Secondly, I am old enough to remember how television news was presented long ago. Far less editorialism and far less agenda. Now everything is slanted.
Maybe we listen to those two guys occasionally to get something of the other viewpoint as we would get it nowhere ELSE.
And maybe some of us get frustrated when we are willing to recognize when we have been bamboozled and lied to by OUR guy, and retract support yet the other side will never admit to error nor admit THEIR guy is anything but wonderful. When THEIR guy screws up, it's just a Republican or Conservative plot. Frustrating.
O'Reilly is a bully. Rush is pedantic and an idealogue. But they called Clinton's character right from the beginning and everything they predicted about the guy came true. Is that what angers you about Rush and O'Reilly? I think so.
I don't much like them being the representatives of the opposing veiwpoint, but nobody else is allowed to step forward....certainly not on ABC, CBS, NBC or CNN. The ONLY time there is any attempt to provide balance is on Capitol Gang. That's their one hour sop to balance. The rest of the time it's bias as the norm.
|
| Bill R |
Posted - November 05 2003 : 10:30:24 PM
Amen. |
|
![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]")
