woodsmoke Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 I try not to waste my time with O'bagger.. Man seems to love sound of his own voice, much like the "Voice of England" character in V for Vendetta was. Hardly surprising, considering the character was created as a direct allegory of O'Reilly. Re: the OP - O'Reilly hosts person of greater intelligence, makes tremendous ass of self on national television. Film at 11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ro-bear Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 I read one of O'Reilly's books once. He is not an introspective man, to say the least. He has given no thought to his personal religion; he simply chooses to "throw in" with the theists because of some Pascal's-Wager-Lite he has in his mind. Truly a very shallow man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yaoi Huntress Earth Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 I read one of O'Reilly's books once. He is not an introspective man, to say the least. He has given no thought to his personal religion; he simply chooses to "throw in" with the theists because of some Pascal's-Wager-Lite he has in his mind. Truly a very shallow man. I've tried to read some neo-con\right-wing writers (just to give them a chance): Dr. Laura, Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck. And their total arrogance (especally in the case of D. Laura, self-rightous ness) is such a turn off. I can let a little arrogance go but these guys just go overboard even when they have a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OpheliaGinger Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 If you want arrogance, try reading Michael Savage no less try to listen to him. O'reilly wouldn't be so much a blowhard if he would actually do a little introspection, but then he might find that he isn't quite the bad ass or intellectual as he thinks he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ephymeris Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 I could barely watch this pitiful excuse for a debate. I hate how smug O'Reilly is. What a pompous bastard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yaoi Huntress Earth Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 If you want arrogance, try reading Michael Savage no less try to listen to him. O'reilly wouldn't be so much a blowhard if he would actually do a little introspection, but then he might find that he isn't quite the bad ass or intellectual as he thinks he is. Kind of like Sarah Palin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hereticzero Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 'Fuck Bill O'Reilly!' Snoop Dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yaoi Huntress Earth Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 'Fuck Bill O'Reilly!' Snoop Dog. My respect for Snoop Dog has just gone up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qec Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 O'Reilly is just one big mess of Projection: he Projects the label of Fascist onto others he disagrees with because he's too much of a coward and bully to deal with his own Fascism. Fuck O'Reilly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vomit Comet Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 If you want arrogance, try reading Michael Savage no less try to listen to him. O'reilly wouldn't be so much a blowhard if he would actually do a little introspection, but then he might find that he isn't quite the bad ass or intellectual as he thinks he is. To his credit, he came out in favor of the public option. That takes balls the size of Jupiter if you ask me. Edited to add: a close friend of mine went on his show once. (Not gonna name names.) She said that what you see on TV doesn't even approach the caliber of asshole he really is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Doesn't O'Reilly accept evolution? So, why does he want intelligent design to be taught in public school when he doesn't believe in it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SairB Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 To a degree, O'Reily and Dawkins are two of a kind. They both have some arrogance in thier demeanor. They both can be very irritating. O'Reily is tallented at swaying people with his bag of wind and Dawkins is good at methodically and logically tearing apart Fundy arguments yet being entertaining. Oh well.....to each his own.... At least Dawkins never bashed a kidnapped child for attention or demonized an abortion doctor to the point of influencing his murder and letting his peers laugh about it. Let alone brag how he's such a moral "Culture Warrior". In the case of two occassional jerks, I'll go with the more logical, less mean-spirited one. And how cool was Dawkins in not totally losing it during that interview? I mean, seriously - "teaching all the alternatives"! What alternatives? Okay, I admit I've become a bit of a Dawkins fangirl, but really, what's not to like? Some things are worth getting angry about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vomit Comet Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Doesn't O'Reilly accept evolution? So, why does he want intelligent design to be taught in public school when he doesn't believe in it? So that the dumb-ass Christians will once again vote the GOP straight ticket in 2012. It's the same reason that Ronnie Ray-Gun strung them along while harboring a deep distrust of them in private, and the same reason that W. Bush and his cronies kept giving them hand-jobs the whole time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yaoi Huntress Earth Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Doesn't O'Reilly accept evolution? So, why does he want intelligent design to be taught in public school when he doesn't believe in it? So that the dumb-ass Christians will once again vote the GOP straight ticket in 2012. It's the same reason that Ronnie Ray-Gun strung them along while harboring a deep distrust of them in private, and the same reason that W. Bush and his cronies kept giving them hand-jobs the whole time. But I sometimes have to wonder who's manipulating who. The GOP are just stringing them along with possible exceptions of Palin and Huckabee, but they tend to let the fundies have what they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddbird1963 Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Does FOX News really care about the GOP per se, or do they just want to have their ratings niche? All the other cable news networks were entrenched in their political positions when FOX News appeared in the market, so they created a conservative power house at FOX. But do they REALLY care about the politics or the ratings bonanza that specialization poses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 But I sometimes have to wonder who's manipulating who. The GOP are just stringing them along with possible exceptions of Palin and Huckabee, but they tend to let the fundies have what they want. What was that Napoleon said about religion being useful stuff for keeping the common people quiet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagan Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Does FOX News really care about the GOP per se, or do they just want to have their ratings niche? All the other cable news networks were entrenched in their political positions when FOX News appeared in the market, so they created a conservative power house at FOX. But do they REALLY care about the politics or the ratings bonanza that specialization poses? I think you're right about the ratings niche. Fox doesn't care what people like <a href="http://i484.photobucket.com/albums/rr209/freakdog19/o_rly.jpg">O RLY</a> says as long as its niche viewers keep watching. I don't want to speculate what the niche is, but there's a viewer for all kinds of ugly in this world and Fox certainly has its fair share of ugly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yaoi Huntress Earth Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 I think you're right about the ratings niche. Fox doesn't care what people like <a href="http://i484.photobucket.com/albums/rr209/freakdog19/o_rly.jpg">O RLY</a> says as long as its niche viewers keep watching. I don't want to speculate what the niche is, but there's a viewer for all kinds of ugly in this world and Fox certainly has its fair share of ugly. I find some of the people who are the biggest devotees of this station, especally any of the big time commentators tend to be some of the angriest and most hateful people I've come across. I think people like Rush, Coulter and O'Riley tend to make people feel secure in their hatefulness\prejudices (especally Rush), give them easy targets for the world's problem as well as a give them a clean-cut image that they can see as moral just like the chest-beaters Jesus warned about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qec Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 I think you're right about the ratings niche. Fox doesn't care what people like <a href="http://i484.photobucket.com/albums/rr209/freakdog19/o_rly.jpg">O RLY</a> says as long as its niche viewers keep watching. I don't want to speculate what the niche is, but there's a viewer for all kinds of ugly in this world and Fox certainly has its fair share of ugly. I find some of the people who are the biggest devotees of this station, especally any of the big time commentators tend to be some of the angriest and most hateful people I've come across. I think people like Rush, Coulter and O'Riley tend to make people feel secure in their hatefulness\prejudices (especally Rush), give them easy targets for the world's problem as well as a give them a clean-cut image that they can see as moral just like the chest-beaters Jesus warned about. In all honesty it's just the worst form of Capitalism In Action; the smarter are preying off the stupider and making a shitload doing it. In the end the price people like O'Reilly or Limbaugh have to pay is merely cognitive dissonance and being dishonest with themselves on a political level; they are all rick motherfuckers at the end of the day that can do whatever they want whenever they want, cough up all kinds of bullshit, make a killing doing it, and none of the peons are all the wiser and are at each others' throats instead... If anyone thinks neo-liberalism is going away I think they might find themselves disappointed... The funniest is watching Burnedout and others ranting and raving about how we need Neo-Liberalism when that's exactly what we have had, still have, and will continue to be fucked by: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/08/04/neoliberalism/print.html Most liberal activists today are more libertarian, in an economic sense, than guys like Burnedout or Kevin who correct them for not being the very thing they are!!! This is zilarious! Either we get down with the neo-mercantilism, or we go down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OpheliaGinger Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Okay, I admit I've become a bit of a Dawkins fangirl, but really, what's not to like? Some things are worth getting angry about. I have to admit, he is quite "hot" for a man his age. And no, it' not the accent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vomit Comet Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 but they tend to let the fundies have what they want. Not to any serious degree. Pat Robertson was so frustrated and disappointed with Reagan that he tried to run for President in 1988. People freaked out back then that Jerry Falwell was such a close confidante to Reagan. What they didn't know at the time was that Reagan kept him so close in order to placate both him and his followers. Pat Robertson went renegade once he realized they were being sold a bill of goods. Reagan had virtually no intention of bringing back school prayer, outlawing abortion, etc., and Reagan went to the liberal "namby pamby" Bel Air Presbyterian Church upon retirement but was otherwise mostly irreligious (certainly by fundie standards). I think Bush I maintained incredulity towards them. W. Bush had drank the fundie Kool-Aid though not entirely (he publicly stated that Muslims worship the same god). However, the neo-con intellectuals working behind the scenes were mostly secular Jews that had been radicals back in the 60s. They regarded evangelicals as stupid hillbillies easily led by the nose, and Rove did so masterfully. W. Bush wasn't a bright-eyed howdy doody either; he was every bit as cynical as Nixon, but much, much stupider. However, the State and Local level is another matter entirely. Prop 8 in California, for example. But as far as national politics, national politicians who have drank the Kool-Aid aside (such as Nevada senator John Ensign, who got caught putting his dick in the secretary) the religious right are tools. To this day, school prayer is a non-starter, and states like Oklahoma aside, the possibility of Roe V. Wade being overturned is utterly remote, even during the darkest days of the Bush II years. The religious right project has been mostly unsuccessful, aside from mobilizing and politicizing evangelicals whereas before (during the Carter era) they were scattered and mostly apolitical. It was a hell of a feat, the transition from the Carter years to the neo-con years, in terms of what was done to American fundyism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vomit Comet Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Does FOX News really care about the GOP per se, or do they just want to have their ratings niche? Rupert Murdoch has a very vested interest in promoting right wing economic policies. Much of what we're seeing is very calculated and deliberate. Of course, social conservatism is included in the mix to rope in as many would-be Kool-Aid drinkers as possible. I'm sure Mr. Murdoch himself, a ruthless Australian, could give a shit about American social conservatism or Jesus or any of that shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NonXNonExX Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 I think the real proof that FOX is mostly after the ratings, rather than really interested in the loony fundamentalist fringe, is the fact that they also have programs like The Simpsons. Though such programs are wildly popular, they are hardly promoters of religion or so-called "family values." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 I think the real proof that FOX is mostly after the ratings, rather than really interested in the loony fundamentalist fringe, is the fact that they also have programs like The Simpsons. I'm reminded of that episode of The Simpsons where Homer and Bart are looking for an alien and they joke about how if they can't find a real one, they can always make a fake one and send the video tape to Fox, "they'll show anything." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vomit Comet Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 I think the real proof that FOX is mostly after the ratings, rather than really interested in the loony fundamentalist fringe, is the fact that they also have programs like The Simpsons. Though such programs are wildly popular, they are hardly promoters of religion or so-called "family values." All of the newsmedia that Murdoch controls is intended to promote right wing economic policies. Such as the Sun in the UK. (Is it the Sun?) Ratings/sales are #1, but a close #2 is pro-business, pro-capitalism, anti-welfare state. Murdoch is very shrewd like that. But I doubt he gives a fuck about Christians or about social conservatism, that's just window dressing. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if his house parties feature 55 year old executives snorting coke off the tits of hired escorts. Remember that Murdoch is Australian, and they're as godless as anyone in northwestern Europe is. As far as entertainment went, Fox gave us Married With Children and the Simpsons. The Simpsons can get away with poking fun at Murdoch and his ilk because the Simpsons are the goose that laid the golden egg. And again, Murdoch doesn't give two shits about what James Dobson thinks. The only thing they have in common is that they support right wing economic policies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts