so much anger...

[telkanuru]

http://www.bushpresident2004.com/oreilly-transcript.htm

This is why I have a generic peeved attitude towards the right. Does anyone actually listen to O'Reilly? What possible merit does he have?

Discuss.

[Schiavona]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

http://www.bushpresident2004.com/oreilly-transcript.htm

This is why I have a generic peeved attitude towards the right. Does anyone actually listen to O'Reilly? What possible merit does he have?

Discuss.

After reading that, all I can say is this is why I have a generic peeved attitude towards the Right and Left. My God! The man who lost his father is blaming the US government because the men who trained the hijackers were trained by men who were trained by men who were trained by the US to fight the Russians? Why not blame the Brittish? Without them, there wouldn't be a USA.

I'm not sure WHAT O'Reilly believes in other than tv ratings.

[RebelFencer]

Anyone here notice that the further right you get the more angry you seem to be. Only the people to the furthest reaches of the left wing exhibit such anger. I think the right wingers need to just chill.

[Soldier]

Bill O'Reilly is angry not because he's right-wing, but because he's an angry man. Without wanting to offend any Irish here, he'd probably tell you he's an angry man because he's Irish (and would do so quite proudly). Glick was an idiot.

I actually like Bill O'Reilly - he doesn't mince words, he gets to the point.

[Schiavona]

Originally Posted by RebelFencer

Anyone here notice that the further right you get the more angry you seem to be. Only the people to the furthest reaches of the left wing exhibit such anger. I think the right wingers need to just chill.

I cannot begin to explain how tired I am of the whole right wing/left wing BS.
These are neat little boxes invented to further divide Americans. So, what am I? I'm a catholic and I believe that life begins at conception, but I believe in a woman's right to choose. Am I Right or Left? I'm against gun control, but I believe fully in freedom of speech. Am I Right or Left? I believe that we should do everything we can to get rid of poverty in this country and the world. Am I Right or Left? I believe that people shouldn't hide behind excuses for their actions, I believe in personal responsibilty. Am I Right or Left? I believe that killing is wrong, that every death diminishes us, but I believe some people need to die. Am I Right or Left? The truth is that people DON'T fall into neat little catagories, please don't fall for this Right/Left con. Think about EVERY issue-decide for yourself. By the way, I hate flicks, but I think they should stay in fencing. Am I Right or Left?

[telkanuru]

Yet his points are quite obviously lies. He has his own agenda and, as demonstrated by the above, will do anything and say anything to support it.

I think the point of the man blaming the gov't for 9/11 is much more reasonable than it is made out to be. The irony of having 3,000 citizens killed by a terrorist group that our country created is almost too much. But that is not what irritates me the most. My problem is that O'Reilly invited this man on his show because he thought he could manipulate him and his words, but refused to allow him to really complete a sentance. I can think of no comparable interviewer from the left. Heck, I've listened to call-in shows on NPR where the host has politely listened to anti-gay/semetic/whatever tirades without interrruption because they asked for people to call in with their opinions. I don't even know how O'Reilly is still on the air.

[RebelFencer]

Originally Posted by Schiavona

I cannot begin to explain how tired I am of the whole right wing/left wing BS.
These are neat little boxes invented to further divide Americans. So, what am I? I'm a catholic and I believe that life begins at conception, but I believe in a woman's right to choose. Am I Right or Left? I'm against gun control, but I believe fully in freedom of speech. Am I Right or Left? I believe that we should do everything we can to get rid of poverty in this country and the world. Am I Right or Left? I believe that people shouldn't hide behind excuses for their actions, I believe in personal responsibilty. Am I Right or Left? I believe that killing is wrong, that every death diminishes us, but I believe some people need to die. Am I Right or Left? The truth is that people DON'T fall into neat little catagories, please don't fall for this Right/Left con. Think about EVERY issue-decide for yourself. By the way, I hate flicks, but I think they should stay in fencing. Am I Right or Left?

Schianova: Trust me, I understand what you are talking about. When I refer to Right or Left wingers I'm referring to either the psycho republican in the white house or the pundits with their own shows because of their psychotic nature. I am personally divided on many issues, and most of them are the same as yours. Yes, using right or left to describe someone is a way to put them into a "neat little box", but it's saves a lot of time typing a bunch of descriptions that would otherwise be suitably put by just using one of those above terms. Right or Left (when I use it) just means someone with the majority of their views in either side, I don't think anyone alive is completely conservative or completely liberal, so in conclusion: IT'S NOT THAT BIG OF A DEAL! CHILL!!

[Soldier]

Yes, yes, I think this thread is quite aptly named...

[Schiavona]

Originally Posted by RebelFencer

IT'S NOT THAT BIG OF A DEAL! CHILL!!

For you Reb, anything.......

Actually, I wasn't angry when I wrote the post. More like tired and annoyed.I strongly believe that the people who jerk this country around really like to use the convient, time saving terms, Right and Left just to further divide us against ourselves.

I think O'Reily's a jerk because,............He's a jerk! The other guy is so ignorant it hurt my eyes to read that transcript. Training really means very little, it's cheap* and easy to find in this world of ours. It's the motivation behind the acts that is important. The motivation comes from radical Islam with it's roots deep in Saudi Arabia.

*By cheap, I mean cheap in a blow-up-buildings-kill-3000-people sort of way, not in a new mask sort of way

[Inquartata]

This is why I don't listen to most of the talk shows, much less talk radio: the hosts are largely egotistical blowhards who shout down any divergent opinions. There's a reason Limbaugh's fans are called "Dittoheads". That's the sort of caller or guest these guys like.

But then, I think it's more a matter of the political talk-show culture than of "the right". These guys are getting paid to be the way they are. I don't think they represent the average conservative any more than Liberace represented the average gay. It's showmanship, albeit of a vaguely odious sort.

As for hosts on the left not behaving this way, I think it's because there are so few of them. Statistically the sample is very skewed to the right.

[Tireur]

Try listening to Al Franken's "O'Franken Factor" sometime. At least O'Reiily brings on people with extremely opposed viewpoints and debates them. Franken, while promising "challenging interviews and debates", only brings on people who agree with him.

Says he is not owned by anyone, but is funded by democrat "fat cat millionare" Mark Walsh.

These are people who say the New York Times, Peter Jennings and Dan Rather are puppets of the Bush Administration. Try and figure that one out.

[acfencing]

Why can't we all just get a long.

[Soldier]

Because people like you come about.

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by Tireur

Try listening to Al Franken's "O'Franken Factor" sometime. At least O'Reiily brings on people with extremely opposed viewpoints and debates them. Franken, while promising "challenging interviews and debates", only brings on people who agree with him.

Says he is not owned by anyone, but is funded by democrat "fat cat millionare" Mark Walsh.

These are people who say the New York Times, Peter Jennings and Dan Rather are puppets of the Bush Administration. Try and figure that one out.

O'Reilly brings in people of opposite viewpoints and tells them to "Shut up Shut up!" and then cuts their mike. Is this what passes as a debate in the south

Frankin's show was formed as a "Well if you're going to do this" thing and is deliberate in its actions.

My question is why does O'Reilly and Limbaugh have such huge audiences? What's the appeal?

[Tireur]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

My question is why does O'Reilly and Limbaugh have such huge audiences? What's the appeal?

Actually it's why "do" they have such huge audiences and you won't like my answer. It's because they are actually more "mainstream" than "liberals" (I hate using those terms too) imagine.

I always hated Limbaugh, because I thought he was an arrogant self-absorbed jerk. I hated it even more because I would frequently think he was right.

O'Reilly is an enigma, he will take an extremely liberal point of view almost as often as he will a conservative one. And (at least the times I've watched) he only shuts them up when they aboslutely will not answer and go off on some screaming tangent of their own.

[telkanuru]

But if they're mainstream and the people who listen believe them, then why must they lie? For example, O'Reilly has claimed that he was always an independant, even though paper documentation has shown he was a republican at one time. Not big, but an example. I have never heard O'Reilly take a "liberal" viewpoint. And you forgot to add "when they point out his hypocracies" to when he shuts people up. The whole lot of them are raving loonys. I see the existance of Franken et al. to be a neccessary reaction to O'Reilly et al. (ex. Anne Coulter), since they mainly concern themselves with refuting the "rightist" radio hosts and pointing out lies (See "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" and "Lies and the Lying Liers who Tell Them").

See also http://atrios.blogspot.com

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Soldier

I actually like Bill O'Reilly - he doesn't mince words, he gets to the point.

more often than not, he intentionally obfuscates the point.

-m

[jeff]

I haven't seen Franken's show yet, but have watched O'Reilly's and the Hannity and Colmes ones on Fox. Pretty bad. As previously mentioned, O'Reilly shuts off anybody who effectively contradicts him, and I've watched open-mouthed while he says one simplistic bit of nonsense after another. Hannity's another nasty individual; smearing the ones he doesn't like and tossing softballs to the ones he's on the same side as: "Hannity: Don't you agree that liberals and Democrats are scum? Right-wing guest: Why, I'm glad you brought up that probing question. Yes they are."

Of course, Limbaugh shows that you can hold down a job while strung out on drugs.

Why do these people act so nasty? (A) They're ideologues; (B) It pays very well: it makes viewers on your side happy and outrages the other side, so there's guaranteed viewers.

[kalivor]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

My question is why does O'Reilly and Limbaugh have such huge audiences? What's the appeal?

Well, O'Reilly is just plain funny. Hilarious. He's a parody of the ideas that he means to represent, and he undercuts his arguments to anybody with a brain who happens to be watching. He makes a(n often rediculous) argument, and the moment someone argues against it, either with facts, opinions or logic, he falls apart.

As someone who doesn't hold to O'Reilly's ideals, he represents everything I'd like the Right to be ... a blabbering idiot who tries to drown out the opposition whenever they start to make sense. That this happens every time one of them is invited to speak just makes the comedy all that much richer ...

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Tireur

Try listening to Al Franken's "O'Franken Factor" sometime. At least O'Reiily brings on people with extremely opposed viewpoints and debates them.

THAT'S what passes for debate these days??? wow, America is even worse off than I thought...

-m