Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Is Bill O'Reilly Sour?  
User currently offlineCometII From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 302 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2541 times:

In ode to the Chris Matthews thread.

Saw his show yesterday, and he was snapping at anything anyone said that suggested SOME oversight of the past 6 years...

I'm not for wild goose chases, but things like the way the war was handled by the Defense Department, i.e. troop numbers, and contracts should be looked upon.

Yet O'Reilly was desperate saying there should be ZERO investigations. I don't recall him saying the same about a personal scandal some years ago. Yet for a vital national security issue, he is not against hearings.

And then he was beyond sour with Charles Schumer, constantly suggesting that the Dems should not dare attack the president... 'The American people don't want Bush attacked!!", "No, no!" . Of course we don't, but we want some sense of accountability for public decisions.

He really gave himself away yesterday.

And BTW, I agree Crhis Matthews was cheerleading teh Dems, but so is O'Reilly cheering on the GOP.

24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2501 times:

He's sour-probably more sour than normal after this election-because the world doesn't see everything in his reactionary, right-wing way, and it pisses him off.

I don't believe there should be an impeachment, but I think there SHOULD be investigations into the war on Iraq, and why this administration hasn't implimented most recommendatons of the 9/11 commission.

He's just a bitter middle-aged man.


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2501 times:

Quoting CometII (Thread starter):
Saw his show yesterday, and he was snapping at anything anyone said that suggested SOME oversight of the past 6 years...

I saw the show, and he wasn't talking about oversight, although the guy he was interviewing kept trying to avoid the question that was asked. O'Reilly was asking whether the Dems were going to initiate investigations into the going-to-war decision, assign special prosecutors, etc. The interviewee kept saying stuff like "Well of course the American people expect us to excercise oversight, blah blah blah." Oversight over current operations is not the same thing as a muckraking excercise which will of course be timed to come to a peak in about 18 months or so.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2493 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 2):
Oversight over current operations is not the same thing as a muckraking excercise which will of course be timed to come to a peak in about 18 months or so

Maybe, Charles, but it's something that the current Congress should have done, but didn't have the gonads or political will to do.

The people in this nation DO have a right to know why we went to war in Iraq, when the intel was so wrong; why it was handled so poorly after it was prosecuted; and why there's not plan to get us out of there, 3 1/2 years after it started.

I know that bugs you, but it should have been done last year.


User currently offlineTexdravid From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1345 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2492 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 1):
He's sour-probably more sour than normal after this election-because the world doesn't see everything in his reactionary, right-wing way, and it pisses him off.

I agree, but why should we see the world Chrissy Mathews sees it as well?
His cheerleading on Tuesday was a disgrace. Hear some soundbites from MSNBC--they are out of control.

On the subject of investigations, they will begin, and they will be rough.



Tort reform now. Throw lawyers in jail later.
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2477 times:

Quoting Texdravid (Reply 4):
His cheerleading on Tuesday was a disgrace. Hear some soundbites from MSNBC--they are out of control.

Perhaps, but I recall a LOT of cheerleading in 2000, '02 and '04 from good old RNN during those election wins. Brit Hume looked positively grim the other night.


User currently offlineSATX From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 2840 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2464 times:

Quoting CometII (Thread starter):
And BTW, I agree Crhis Matthews was cheerleading teh Dems, but so is O'Reilly cheering on the GOP.

I stayed up all night watching the developments, mainly in shock, but I was also watching how MSNBC handled it. I must say that Chris Matthews is nothing like O'Reilly and his ilk in my view. Matthews was initially rather pointed toward some of the conservative guests, yes, but in his defense he also gave them a chance to say whatever they wanted in response, unlike the folks you see on Fox News that try to railroad some of their more liberal guests.

This gave the guests a chance to look extremely professional, and even as a liberal I felt they did look very professional while responding to Matthews. Also, as the night continued Matthews didn't hold back from calling out a couple Democrats with rather negative remarks after they claimed victory before any concession speech had occurred. His comments generally reflected what was happening and, unlike Fox News, MSNBC kept the even-handed discussion related to general views instead of specific attacks on a single party.

I didn't watch Fox News' coverage of the election beyond a quick look, but I have watched Fox News many times in the past and my comments come from watching both their attack-dog stance during the Clinton years and their lap-puppy kiss-up years during the Bush administration.



Open Season on Consumer Protections is Just Around the Corner...
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2463 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 3):
Maybe, Charles, but it's something that the current Congress should have done, but didn't have the gonads or political will to do.

On that I agree. But what happened 3 or 4 years ago was in no way criminal. Wishful thinking, close-mindedness to evidence that dissagreed with preconvictions, yes, and we already know all about it. We also know that such an investigation would be nothing but a fishing expedition for something, anything, with which to tar Republicans in 2008. After the Clinton experience, I expect that most of the American people would be pretty pissed if the Dems tried to get their petty revenge.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 3):
The people in this nation DO have a right to know why we went to war in Iraq, when the intel was so wrong; why it was handled so poorly after it was prosecuted;

Such an investigation should be made internally, not made into a public circus. The professionals within the CIA and Defence department need to examine (as I'm sure they already have) what went wrong and why. The bozos in Congress, whose expertise is kissing babies and who have no clue of how such organizations work, cannot add anything to the process except to wash laundry in public.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2450 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 7):
Such an investigation should be made internally, not made into a public circus.

I didn't say make it a circus of it, but the results should not be kept from the American people, either, which this Administration does with everything it does.


User currently offlineS12PPL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2408 times:

The poor baby is seeing the Deomcrats re-take everything except the White House, and he's pissed off about it. He's a bleeding heart conservative, who can't stand to see the Democrats takig control.

User currently offlineTexdravid From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1345 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2376 times:

Quoting SATX (Reply 6):
I stayed up all night watching the developments, mainly in shock, but I was also watching how MSNBC handled it. I must say that Chris Matthews is nothing like O'Reilly and his ilk in my view. Matthews was initially rather pointed toward some of the conservative guests, yes, but in his defense he also gave them a chance to say whatever they wanted in response, unlike the folks you see on Fox News that try to railroad some of their more liberal guests.

This gave the guests a chance to look extremely professional, and even as a liberal I felt they did look very professional while responding to Matthews. Also, as the night continued Matthews didn't hold back from calling out a couple Democrats with rather negative remarks after they claimed victory before any concession speech had occurred. His comments generally reflected what was happening and, unlike Fox News, MSNBC kept the even-handed discussion related to general views instead of specific attacks on a single party.

I didn't watch Fox News' coverage of the election beyond a quick look, but I have watched Fox News many times in the past and my comments come from watching both their attack-dog stance during the Clinton years and their lap-puppy kiss-up years during the Bush administration.

Any network that gives an unabashed moonbat like Keith Odorman an anchor chair is completely worthless. Chrissy Mathews should have had on pom-poms for crying out loud. Chrissy has been carrying the Dem's water this entire year!!

Never has Brit Hume ever, ever yelled "She won, she won" when talking about a Republican and laughing and smiling. Never. Brit is a paragon of fairness compared to any anchor on CNN or MSNBC.



Tort reform now. Throw lawyers in jail later.
User currently offlineAsstChiefMark From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2372 times:

The USS Idealism has struck an iceberg and is slowly sinking. Bill O'Reilly, its fearless and egotistical captain, is horrified at the thought of having to tread water in the vast, cold Ocean of Pragmatism. As the waves begin to lap at his feet, he becomes more anxious than an Amish man whose buggy has broken down in a Red Light District.

As the hypothermia sets in, he starts to feel a powerful false sense of well-being. His mind fades and he begins to hallucinate. His failing brain becomes awash with delusions of grandeur, defiance, and self-righteousness. However, he's completely unaware that his mind is actually deceiving him with an overwhelming false perception of reality and logic. He sincerely believes that all is well. But he's actually dying.

Not all is a fantasy, however. He realizes there's a shark nibbling on his leg and that its name is Keith Olbermann.

Mark


User currently offlineConfuscius From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 3829 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2368 times:

"Never has Brit Hume ever...laughing and smiling. Never"

How can he when he is in perpetual state of constipation.




This is the best he can do.




Ain't I a stinker?
User currently offlineTurbo7x7 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 266 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2328 times:

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 11):

ROTFLMAO!! Hilarious, thank you!

Quoting Texdravid (Reply 10):
Brit is a paragon of fairness compared to any anchor on CNN or MSNBC.

 no   no 
Only if the world revolved around Fox News.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 7):

Such an investigation should be made internally, not made into a public circus.

 Yeah sure  Yeah sure
Riiiight. But when the Pres get a blowjob on the side, we NEED TO KNOW every prurient detail! The public has a right dammit!! We need to know about that stain on the blue dress. Because even right wingers need some juicy masturbatory fantasies every once in a while.  Big grin

But the leadup to war? Shhhhhh, keep it on the downlow. . .  Yeah sure


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2295 times:

Quoting Turbo7x7 (Reply 13):
Riiiight. But when the Pres get a blowjob on the side, we NEED TO KNOW every prurient detail!

No, but when a president lies under oath, THAT is a big deal. Do I think he should have been asked the question? No. But it WAS asked, and Clinton was required by law to answer truthfully.


User currently offlineTurbo7x7 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 266 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2216 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 14):

No, but when a president lies under oath, THAT is a big deal.

Beware, you may have to eat those words within 2 years. . .  Wink


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2200 times:

Quoting Turbo7x7 (Reply 15):
Beware, you may have to eat those words within 2 years. . .

Over what? Do you have any evidence that he lied, much less under oath?

I didn't think so.


User currently offlineTurbo7x7 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 266 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2194 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 16):
Over what? Do you have any evidence that he lied, much less under oath?

What I meant was he can be pressured or set up for that.

Just like Clinton had walked into the trap the GOP sprung for him.

I'm sure Clinton knew the risks he was taking when he lied under oath. He probably figured the GOP Congress wasn't going to throw the book at him for lying about a blowjob. Obviously, he miscalculated. Most of the world thought the impeachment was a joke, and a power play by the GOP (so did a significant part of the US). But anyway, that's ancient history.

I suspect there's a lot of dirty laundry that we STILL don't know about regarding Iraq. Some of it COULD be highly ILLEGAL! In any case, whatever happens, the next two years are going to be fun. . .  Smile


User currently offlineAerokiwi From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 2683 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2149 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 7):
But what happened 3 or 4 years ago was in no way criminal.

But how do you know unless you undertake a public investigation? Jumping to conclusions a bit here aren't we?

And isn't the entire war illegal under international law? Lucky the US didn't sign up to the International Crimnal Court...for a few ricj cronies at least.


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2139 times:

Quoting Aerokiwi (Reply 18):
But how do you know unless you undertake a public investigation? Jumping to conclusions a bit here aren't we?

Why don't we investigate you, while we're at it? That would of course be illegal, because you cannot launch an investigation without probable cause, and there is none. Of course that won't stop some people...

Quoting Aerokiwi (Reply 18):
And isn't the entire war illegal under international law?

No it was not. It was absolutely legal, insofar as wars can be "legal". Saddam signed an agreement in 1991, to which the USA was one of the enforcing powers. Saddam broke the agreement consistantly and constantly, so the cease fire of 1991 became null and void. The 2003 war was legally a continuation of the 1991 war, whose end was conditional upon Saddam's living up to his agreements.

It is this distiction that answers the question of why Bush does not go after Iran, North Korea, or other dictators - no other country has a broken cease fire to enforce.


User currently offlineSATX From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 2840 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2125 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 19):
Quoting Aerokiwi (Reply 18):
But how do you know unless you undertake a public investigation? Jumping to conclusions a bit here aren't we?

Why don't we investigate you, while we're at it? That would of course be illegal, because you cannot launch an investigation without probable cause, and there is none. Of course that won't stop some people...

Sounds like yet more mindless deflection from folks who dare not admit that even their side is human. The BBC ran some really scary stories after the 2000 election. This was after all the American media had completely dropped the issue without any substantial investigating of their own and before the UK government had castrated the BBC's news division for daring to challenge their pro-war propaganda. I would certainly like to see somebody actually investigate to completion what exactly happened in Florida during the 2000 election. As for the 2004 election, I would like to see the Swift Boat folks answer for their careless allegations with actual evidence and I would like to know why we still have voting systems that no bank or free email service would trust. I want the systems proven to be safe and for there to be a verifiable record of each vote with a nice long paper trail. I'm a hard-core environmentalist, but when it comes to ensuring an honest and transparent election I'll accept the loss of a few trees.



Open Season on Consumer Protections is Just Around the Corner...
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2124 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 1):
He's just a bitter middle-aged man.

to the above i'd add, "who apparently isn't getting laid enough."

 biggrin 


User currently offlineAllstarflyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2074 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 1):
He's sour-probably more sour than normal after this election-because the world doesn't see everything in his reactionary, right-wing way, and it pisses him off.

He is more right wing than he admits, but it's obvious you don't listen attentively to the man. His radio broadcasts are full of scathing remarks for the Republicans, just like Boortz and other hosts.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 5):
Brit Hume looked positively grim the other night.

Dude, he hasn't smiled since he was grilling Dukakis in the '88 debates.

Quoting SATX (Reply 6):
Chris Matthews is nothing like O'Reilly and his ilk

His ilk . . . anything to be compared to Couric, Step-on-me-opolis and their ilk? Ilk is more for the likes of Hannity (whom I sometimes respect) and, of course, Coulter (whom Hannity has exulted in the past).

Quoting SATX (Reply 6):
I didn't watch Fox News' coverage of the election beyond a quick look, but I have watched Fox News many times in the past and my comments come from watching both their attack-dog stance during the Clinton years and their lap-puppy kiss-up years during the Bush administration.

Yeah, and that shot of Couric ready to puke when the election was initially called on election night in '00 was classic, too  thumbsdown  !

Quoting Turbo7x7 (Reply 17):
whatever happens, the next two years are going to be fun. . .

Yeah, gridlock is fun, Turbo (or should I call you Admiral  sarcastic  ), isn't it?  banghead 

-R


User currently offlineAerokiwi From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 2683 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2004 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 19):
Why don't we investigate you, while we're at it? That would of course be illegal, because you cannot launch an investigation without probable cause, and there is none. Of course that won't stop some people...

Not being a lawyer (nor are you, I note), I can't really retort that one. the nuances of "probable cause", however, are likely to allow for an investigation into some aspect of the war, though perhaps not the conduct of the war itself. The outright falsity of so much of the intelligence used to legitimise the war is surely itself warrants an investigation, along with the White House's role in using and encouraging (if that is the case) that "information".

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 19):
It is this distiction that answers the question of why Bush does not go after Iran, North Korea, or other dictators - no other country has a broken cease fire to enforce.

Does that still apply with North Korea now that they have detonated a nuclear weapon - a PROVEN threat to global security? While not strictly breaking a ceasefire, the war in Iraq was justified by the "perceived" threat, while North Korea has demonstrated it's threat.

Resorting to minutae like this when it is plain for all the world to see that the US citizenry were blatantly lied to is pretty desperate.


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1978 times:

Quoting Aerokiwi (Reply 23):
Does that still apply with North Korea now that they have detonated a nuclear weapon - a PROVEN threat to global security? While not strictly breaking a ceasefire, the war in Iraq was justified by the "perceived" threat, while North Korea has demonstrated it's threat.

I'm afraid it does. Iraq gave up a number of its sovereign rights in 1991 when it signed the cease fire, and the agreement authorized the use of force again if Iraq did not live up to its side of the agreement, which the UN recognized 17 times).

This is not minutae. This is the very basis of international law, and it is why the Iraq invasion was legal (much to the disappointment of some who think that ALL war is illegal - it would be nice if it were so simple). Without such a broken cease-fire, Iran and North Korea cannot be attacked (legally) unless they go and do something stupid, i.e. an act of war on a neighbor.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Is Bill O'Reilly Nuts? posted Wed Jan 12 2005 03:03:19 by Tbar220
Why Is Underage Drinking Tolerated? posted Wed Nov 15 2006 02:50:47 by Cadet57
Why Is It Unfashionable To Be A "Liberal"? posted Sat Nov 11 2006 05:13:59 by Singapore_Air
Why Is Chris Matthews Smiling? posted Mon Nov 6 2006 14:15:51 by AerospaceFan
Why Is My Computer Shutdown So Slow? posted Tue Oct 10 2006 08:22:46 by Sean1234
Why Is The VW Microbus Disappearing From The USA? posted Tue Aug 15 2006 22:30:44 by Birdwatching
Why Is LOT767-300ER Depressed? posted Tue Aug 15 2006 03:45:44 by FOMEA
Why Is The Political Left So Anti-Israel These Day posted Sat Aug 5 2006 17:11:52 by Zrs70
Why Is The Political Left So Anti-Israel These Day posted Sat Aug 5 2006 17:09:13 by Zrs70
Why Is Terrorism Bad? posted Tue Aug 1 2006 13:19:37 by Cedarjet