Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Keith Olbermann  
User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2458 times:

I think we will agree that these people represent the far right and far left of journalism. While Keith Olbermann plays more to my tastes, sometimes I can't stand watching him just as much as I can't stand watching the people on Fox News.

MSNBC at night has become the Fox for the left.

They are SO polarizing and seem to have so much influence over their audiences, well, FOX seems to have that in check more than MSNBC. But the political agendas are extremely evident to anyone who has any sense. What happened to just giving the news? I'm sorry, but Bill O'Reilly's "No Spin" tag line is just a flat lie.

Do people REALLY buy into this news? I mean, yes they are presenting the facts, but the stories on both sides are so cut and edit and cherry picked, that you never know what the true story is. CNN seems to be in the middle. But the fact that these news anchors are on prime time, their audience is vast, and at times they seem to promote hate of one side or another, and they have SO much influence over the GOP and Democratic Party by only giving one side of the news. What happened to "Fair and Balanced" to use a FOX term.

While FOX currently causes the most controversy, because they seem the most angry and obvious about their political agendas, the left news agencies are doing their job almost as well now.

I'm sort of worried how much power the media has in polarizing this nation. They seem to be ripping us apart, rather than just report the news.

Do you think this is an accurate statement, and what are your opinions on this?

This is a graph of polarized states in past elections:



55 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMax550 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 1154 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2429 times:

I can't watch any of these guys. It wouldn't be so bad if they weren't on "news" networks, that's the part that bothers me.

Quoting UAL747 (Thread starter):
Do people REALLY buy into this news?

Yes

Quoting UAL747 (Thread starter):
I mean, yes they are presenting the facts, but the stories on both sides are so cut and edit and cherry picked, that you never know what the true story is.

They don't present the facts, they present the facts they want to present and then they might have someone on with the other facts so they have to either cut them off so they can't talk or have enough people on that you can't hear them.

Quoting UAL747 (Thread starter):
What happened to "Fair and Balanced" to use a FOX term.

They want more money, the further to the right they went the more money they made.

Quoting UAL747 (Thread starter):
I'm sort of worried how much power the media has in polarizing this nation. They seem to be ripping us apart, rather than just report the news.

I can't say I blame them for it though. It's much easier and cheaper to pay one guy to give commentary on a story than it is to pay a team of reporters to do actual investigating into a story. The viewers have chosen what kind of coverage they want and they've made it clear that they don't want straight reporting.

The scary thing is that we could get to a point where the TV "news" channels are the main source of "news." Newspapers are dropping fast in circulation and they are about the only ones capable of reporting on the big stories that require real reporters anymore. The Internet can fill some of the void but again, most of what is reported is by people with an agenda.

Overall, I agree with you, it does worry me, but there's nothing we can do about it unless people decide they want to know the news instead of the "news".


User currently offlineTommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6667 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2426 times:

all of the hosts mentioned are pretty obnoxious in general. IMHO olbermann is the worst and he should have stuck to sports. O'Reilly is almost as bad but the thing is his show is by far more entertaining because he is so relentless with his guests and his demeanor is hilarious (not that i agree with any of his views.) Olbermann is just smug and is mostly just a liberal opinion show.

Maddow, Geraldo, and Matthews are also pretty bad in their own ways as well.

That chart with the polarized states is very interesting. It's no surprised that we are the highest as of right now and the lowest during the 1980s.



"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
User currently offlineCharles79 From Puerto Rico, joined Mar 2007, 1331 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2410 times:



Quoting UAL747 (Thread starter):
Do you think this is an accurate statement, and what are your opinions on this?

It's always been my impression that the news corporations behave like any other corporation in the sense that they wish to maximize profit. On the face of it there's nothing wrong with trying to make a buck; what ticks people off is that the newscasters and journalists were supposed to be impartial, balanced, and never promoting their own agendas. In a relentless pursuit for profits and market share several of the better known news organizations and personalities appear to have abandonded their values in favor of the ratings war.

That said, I don't think that the vast majority of the reporters are biased on their reporting or carrying some secret agenda. Most still try to keep their own beliefs deep down, whether it would be a political view, a dislike for a particular product or brand, or even a religious belief.

As for the three individuals that the OP mentioned (as several others on TV and newsradio) I think it's safe to say that they are more entertainers than journalists. In the same line as Jeremy Clarkson is not a car reporter but a show presenter at Top Gear (and thus highly vocal about his own opinions and prejudices) these folks represent not the true meaning of journalism but rather a form of entertainment show created around the current events. They are savvy businessmen and women who know what to say (most of the time) to get the highest ratings.

The fact that they still have such an enormous influence might say more about their audience than of themselves.


User currently offlineMichlis From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 737 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2395 times:

In "1984 Orwell predicted "Big Brother" as a government entity that controls and manipulates what information the people receive. I put forth that Big Brother has indeed emerged but rather than the government, it has manifested itself in the form of the media.



[Edited 2009-06-03 10:48:53]

[edited for grammar]

[Edited 2009-06-03 10:51:31]


If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles.
User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4364 posts, RR: 28
Reply 5, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2395 times:



Quoting UAL747 (Thread starter):
Do people REALLY buy into this news?

None of the three are "news casters" in the traditional sense. They provide commentary and analysis, which is different than actual news. I think that is why a lot of people get bent out of shape when they watch these guys - they assume they are watching "news" and become infuriated when the talking-heads' political stripes shine through. You need to watch them from the perspective that they are providing analysis on world events from their own political perspective.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4364 posts, RR: 28
Reply 6, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2371 times:



Quoting Michlis (Reply 4):
I put forth that Big Brother has indeed emerged but rather than the government, it has manifested itself in the form of the media.

I still fear the government far and away more than I would ever fear the media or corporate conglomerations.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 17
Reply 7, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2354 times:



Quoting UAL747 (Thread starter):
I think we will agree that these people represent the far right

Hannity yes ,, Orielly No .

To add ... if you watch the shows for the most part they always have a alternate view of some type when discussing issues. The problem I have with Olberman is that I do not see a real effort to present the other side. I would compare Oberman and Hannity in some sense .. they both are to the far side of the spectrum. But Hannity generally has a liberal on his panel as well . Olberman usually just has another guest who agrees with him .

Are you suggesting that we set up a State run press content review and approval board ? Is that the solution ? As far as polarization goes ... blaming it all on the press coverage and not the real issues is not correct. The alternative to that is a populace who just does not know what is going on . Is that what you are suggesting would be better ?



You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
User currently offlineSW733 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6348 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2342 times:



Quoting UAL747 (Thread starter):
CNN
seems to be in the middle

I have to disagree with you here. I used to think that too, back when I was more of a liberal. After a few years of going to a very liberal school, and being annoyed by them, I found myself being pushed more to the middle. Now that I am in the middle, I see CNN as absolutely left leaning...though not nearly as far as MSNBC.

That being said, I cannot stand watching Fox, MSNBC or CNN anymore. I read local news, or international news. That or just hold my nose to wade through all the BS.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11426 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2335 times:



Quoting UAL747 (Thread starter):
I'm sort of worried how much power the media has in polarizing this nation. They seem to be ripping us apart, rather than just report the news.

Do you think this is an accurate statement, and what are your opinions on this?

ABSOLUTELY accurate. I used to be able to say that Fox News is destroying America, but now MSNBC can be equally polarizing. The idea that the person yet uneducated about the current topic of the day that tunes in to become educated can hear an extremist from one side yell at an extremist from another side and figure out what the actual story is is nuts. Most likely, people will say "this extremist is more believable (or fits my mores better) than the other extremist, so I'll declare this extremist correct." What does that do? That makes people adopt extremist views. And that's not analysis in any way at all.

I was watching Hardball yesterday and it was downright painful. Matthews, the so-called moderator, was so frustrated about his gust who simply refused to admit that her role was to obstruct the Sotomayor confirmation because she was spinning it to sound nice and pleasant. What's the result? Either you hate the guest because she was so overtly disingenuous, or you hate Matthews because he was railing on this lady who was so nice and pleasant.

Another problem is that these guys have to get two sides of a story, even if one side is very obviously correct and the other very obviously incorrect. Why do we give equal time to loonies with crazy ideas? It legitimizes crazy ideas. Nuts. And harmful.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 6):
I still fear the government far and away more than I would ever fear the media or corporate conglomerations.

Why? Corporate America has far more influence on you than the government does. For instance, the government doesn't know what you spent your money on. But VISA does!



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineMax550 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 1154 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2317 times:



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 6):

I still fear the government far and away more than I would ever fear the media or corporate conglomerations.

If you fear the government you need to have a strong media that wants to get the truth, not just push an agenda. The TV "news" networks are more concerned with holding their viewers until the next commercial break than investigating stories.


User currently offlineUal747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2284 times:

I'm wondering if CSPAN is really the only way to formulate your own opinions. I don't believe they give any commentary, just show video of government proceedings....

UAL


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11426 posts, RR: 52
Reply 12, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2277 times:



Quoting Ual747 (Reply 11):
I'm wondering if CSPAN is really the only way to formulate your own opinions.

Probably, but reality just isn't as sexy as people screaming at each other. CSPAN ratings will never come close to the point where it would support advertisements. In other words, it can only exist as a public service.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4364 posts, RR: 28
Reply 13, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2255 times:



Quoting D L X (Reply 9):
Why? Corporate America has far more influence on you than the government does.

Influence, perhaps. But not the sheer power of government. Corporate America may have a lot of influence on my life, but it will never have the ability to control my life in the manner or efficiency that a government could.

Quoting D L X (Reply 9):
For instance, the government doesn't know what you spent your money on. But VISA does!

Ha! Go tell that to the NSA! I'm sure if the government wanted to monitor my Visa/MC spending habits it wouldn't take a lot of effort on their part to do so. And if they did, it would be for nefarious purposes. The worse part is, the government can monitor my spending habits AND my communication habits, travel habits, etc., A nice and convenient one-stop-shop-to-get-to-know-you, and then screw you. At least if Visa snooped on my spending habits, it would only be to either figure out how to get me to spend more of my money or to mitigate their exposure with regards to my ability to pay off my debt.

Quoting Max550 (Reply 10):
If you fear the government you need to have a strong media that wants to get the truth, not just push an agenda.

I have no argument with you there, my friend! I think the state of the current media is sad, to say the least. The problem is news doesn't sell news anymore, sensationalism does. And that is why our media is the trash pile that it is today.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineDXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2239 times:



Quoting UAL747 (Thread starter):
What happened to "Fair and Balanced" to use a FOX term.

On Fox that always represented the newscasts themselves which O'Reilly, Hannity, et. al. are not, they are commentators pure and simple. I don't believe Bret Butler, Shepard Smith, Jon Scott, Jane Skinner, Martha MacCallum or Trace Gallagher present the news in the way that O'Reilly or Hannity do nor are they billed as commentators.

I'm not familiar with the MSNBC anchors during the day but I would suspect they are pretty much the same. The problem is that many people ascribe "news" credentials to commentators. I would no sooner expect Hannity to be "fair and balanced" than I would Olbermann.

I miss the old headline news where the same newscast was recycled every half hour and updated as necessary.

Quoting Max550 (Reply 10):
The TV "news" networks are more concerned with holding their viewers until the next commercial break than investigating stories.

That is true, especially for the legacy networks shows since they only have a half hour every evening.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11426 posts, RR: 52
Reply 15, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2232 times:



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 13):
Go tell that to the NSA!

It is illegal for the NSA to spy on Americans in America.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 13):
I'm sure if the government wanted to monitor my Visa/MC spending habits it wouldn't take a lot of effort on their part to do so.

It is illegal for the government to invade your privacy without a warrant or consent.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 13):
At least if Visa snooped on my spending habits, it would only be to either figure out how to get me to spend more of my money or to mitigate their exposure with regards to my ability to pay off my debt.

You don't see how that's exacting power on you? They can also say "we don't want to be your creditor anymore, please pay up. OR... submit to these demands."

Quoting DXing (Reply 14):
I miss the old headline news where the same newscast was recycled every half hour and updated as necessary.

This statement is quoted for truth.

How sad is it that we have FOUR cable news networks, and yet if you want to know the news right now and its after 5pm or a weekend, you can't!



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineSW733 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6348 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2232 times:



Quoting D L X (Reply 15):
It is illegal for the NSA to spy on Americans in America.

It's illegal to do a lot of things...doesn't mean they are not done.


User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 17
Reply 17, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2219 times:



Quoting Ual747 (Reply 11):
I'm wondering if CSPAN is really the only way to formulate your own opinions

It is one way .. I watch it. Like last time when I saw all the Dem's vote against a GOP amendment to have workers on our military projects / bases have to prove they were US citizens . Ya I formulated a opinion alright ...



You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
User currently offlineFreequentFlier From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 901 posts, RR: 12
Reply 18, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2196 times:



Quoting D L X (Reply 9):
Why? Corporate America has far more influence on you than the government does. For instance, the government doesn't know what you spent your money on. But VISA does!

Is this statement a joke? If I don't like VISA knowing where I spend my money, I'll throw out my VISA card. Poof, problem solved.

On the other hand, the government can seize my property, tax me at a rate of its choosing or throw me in jail and deprive me of liberty. Poll after poll after poll after poll show most Americans are more concerned with Big Government than with Big Business. Any concentration of power people should be skeptical of, but particularly so in the case of the federal government.


User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4364 posts, RR: 28
Reply 19, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2192 times:



Quoting D L X (Reply 15):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 13):
Go tell that to the NSA!

It is illegal for the NSA to spy on Americans in America.



Quoting D L X (Reply 15):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 13):
I'm sure if the government wanted to monitor my Visa/MC spending habits it wouldn't take a lot of effort on their part to do so.

It is illegal for the government to invade your privacy without a warrant or consent.



Quoting D L X (Reply 15):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 13):
At least if Visa snooped on my spending habits, it would only be to either figure out how to get me to spend more of my money or to mitigate their exposure with regards to my ability to pay off my debt.

You don't see how that's exacting power on you? They can also say "we don't want to be your creditor anymore, please pay up. OR... submit to these demands."

Good God, Man. No wonder you love the elite liberal media and love trashing the Right in these forums. You're all for big government! I'm saving the above posts and references for the next time we have a debate on a political topic. These comments are priceless! Thanks, Buddy!



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineZentraedi From Japan, joined Jun 2007, 660 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2175 times:



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 5):
You need to watch them from the perspective that they are providing analysis on world events from their own political perspective.

Naive and just wrong. Their purpose is to be inflammatory, incite and pull in ratings. Even if the host knows better they'll still get all worked up over trivial issues.

They'll even throw out any nonsense if it'll make their viewer/listener base feel better. My favorite is the "You have right not to be called a name." tripe.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11426 posts, RR: 52
Reply 21, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2171 times:



Quoting SW733 (Reply 16):
It's illegal to do a lot of things...doesn't mean they are not done.

Feel free to provide some semblance of proof that this law is being violated.

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 18):
If I don't like VISA knowing where I spend my money, I'll throw out my VISA card.

Be that as it may, you willingly GIVE extremely private information to people who have a lot of power to screw you with it, and to live in this country (unless you go the Kaczinsky route), you MUST give up these private bits of information to lots of different entities, some of which WILL screw you, and screw you much worse than our government ever has.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 19):
Good God, Man. No wonder you love the elite liberal media

Wow! Let me guess, you're one of those anti-intellectual Palin voters?

Why don't we stop with the name calling. You clearly don't know me. Especially if you think I love the "elite liberal media."



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineSW733 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6348 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2162 times:



Quoting D L X (Reply 21):
Feel free to provide some semblance of proof that this law is being violated.

I never said it did happen, I just said it isn't a 100% guarantee it does not. If you want to play that game, provide proof it does not happen, other than the governments word...


User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9047 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2136 times:

We would all be better off if all of these folks were canceled, I cannot stand them anymore, none of them. What function do they have, other than to polarize peoples views. It is theatre, not news.  Sad


It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3387 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2133 times:



Quoting UAL747 (Thread starter):

Do people REALLY buy into this news? I mean, yes they are presenting the facts, but the stories on both sides are so cut and edit and cherry picked, that you never know what the true story is. CNN seems to be in the middle. But the fact that these news anchors are on prime time, their audience is vast, and at times they seem to promote hate of one side or another, and they have SO much influence over the GOP and Democratic Party by only giving one side of the news. What happened to "Fair and Balanced" to use a FOX term.

They do and what usually happens is that someone who buys into Olbermann usually becomes someone who will mock the right by being sarcastic an snide and someone who buys into Hannity will get very angry about right wing issues.

The right for the most part yells their point across very aggressively and the left tends to mock and use sarcasm to get their point across which I personally prefer because it can be funny to see some of the dumb stuff people on the right will say. However when someone on the left says something dumb a conservative will go on a tangent about how the "liberal media" is letting off the hook.

How it looks now MSNBC is on the left, FOX is on the right and CNN tries its best to be in the middle but its a matter of opinion on how successful they are, but they do not put angry conservatives on the air and MSNBC does have Pat Buchanan.

For the hosts you mentioned specifically both Hannity and Olbermann hardly never but people who disagree on their shows because of the legitimate fear of getting destroyed in a debate. O'Reilly does have liberals he brings on but if you say something that strikes a nerve you will get bullied around and he also attacks the far left far more than the far right mainly because he attacks them and the fact that most people associate the far right with extreme social conservatives which he probably is.

As for entertainment the right owns talk radio and the left dominates pretty much all of the comedy, mainly because conservates are easier to make fun of mainly because Obama gives them squat. They do have an arsenal of Biden and Pelosi jokes.

Quoting UAL747 (Thread starter):
While FOX currently causes the most controversy, because they seem the most angry and obvious about their political agendas, the left news agencies are doing their job almost as well now.

Right on, but the left doesn't get mad the mock the yelling.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
25 Yellowstone : Ironically, that's one of the tactics listed in Alinsky's Rules for Radicals that the right wing likes to demonize. Quoting Alinsky: This is part of
26 Us330 : Lock'em up in a sealed, airtight room, throw away the key, and let them scream at each other to death. Seriously--I simply cannot stand most of the ne
27 D L X : Then you haven't really said anything at all because there are few things that have a 100% guarantee. You're the one playing games. You're the one sa
28 FreequentFlier : You contradict yourself in the same paragraph. First you acknowledge that you "willingly" choose to do business with VISA and then you say you "MUST"
29 D L X : There's nothing inconsistent about willfully doing something you must do. Most people willfully pay their taxes, for instance. And then you're swappi
30 DocLightning : It scares the piss out of me in healthcare. Blue Cross knows my medical history. So does AETNA. Every last shred of it. I'd FAR rather trust the gove
31 UAXDXer : Quit watching.... I did a long time ago. What's even worse os watching the 10p local news. It's damn near as bad as watching Jerry Springer. Al least
32 EA CO AS : Perhaps...but then again, who would actually prosecute the government? Regarding the three network blowhards: O'Reilly - entertaining, even though I
33 SW733 : When did I ever, in any of my replies, say "you're not right"? Please provide me with where I said that, because I do not remember, or see, where I d
34 D L X : !! You'd be surprised! Lots of people sue the government every day. So much so that there is a special trial court nearly completely devoted to heari
35 RedFlyer : Well, I don't think we're in disagreement here. I just didn't use the word 'inflammatory', but I don't disagree that it is a good description. But as
36 D L X : That's not what I said. I never said you have nothing to fear from government. I said you have much more to fear from corporations, and yet you willi
37 RedFlyer : And I disagreed and stated you have much, much more to fear from the government than you do for a corporate conglomeration. I can always tell that co
38 D L X : If you don't know the difference between "nothing to fear" and "less to fear" don't bother starting a new thread.
39 RedFlyer : Ok, using your now revised words, I still disagree and will say we have more to fear from the government than from corporate America. And from anothe
40 ER757 : Amen to that - couldn't agree more. As good a piece of advice as there is. The local news here in Seattle is a complete joke. I swear we live in Hoot
41 Yellowstone : I dunno, the government doesn't fill a third of TV broadcast time with propaganda. Corporate America does.
42 MaverickM11 : I've never really thought the nation has become more polarized, so much as those with stronger opinions have gotten louder megaphones and more covera
43 RedFlyer : Everything you do is controlled to one extent or another by the government. When you turn on your TV, what comes through, be it via cable or broadcas
44 LTBEWR : I can't stand Bill O' or Hannity, I find their views and rants far from my viewpoints. Like Limbaugh, they are right wing entertainers. As to KO, I of
45 JM017 : Here's how i look at it: these guys are entertainers. Their shows offer political commentary. I more lean to Olbermann than O'Reilly, but like you th
46 FlyDeltaJets87 : That's because you're using VISA's money to buy something, so they have every right to know. However, if you to pay by cash, then there is no trail.
47 Drgreen757 : I don't understand why so many people hate O'Reilly....I love the guy. We have many of the same beliefs and he reminds me alot of my Grandfather. If y
48 Zentraedi : Well, many people despise him because he's just a flat out hypocrite and changes view on certain things just to support a right wing agenda. There ar
49 StarAC17 : Olbermann bashes Fox and Rush no more and probably less than Bill O' goes after MSNBC, The Huffington post or the Daily Kos to name just 3 left wing
50 Drgreen757 : Are you trying to compare Britney Spears to Bristol Palin because that sh*t is weak. I did alot of stupid crap when I was growing up, does that mean
51 Zentraedi : Actually, Bristol would be more the analog of Jamie Lynn Spears. Also, the judgement really isn't on the minors, but rather the parents. I don't co
52 Drgreen757 : See, now you've offended me by your use of the word cheap. I guess the fact that he gives all his proceeds from the stuff he sells online, which I've
53 Seb146 : But, that is one problem I have with the man: He asks a question, he gets an answer and explination, but that is not good enough, so the other person
54 Mayor : Isn't he guilty of the same narrowmindedness, only on the left? Face it, no one extreme side is any better than the other.
55 Zentraedi : You are just taking that word out of context and arguing. You are just playing a game and "dancing around" the issue, rather than attempting to hones
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...
Keith Olbermann Explains Why He Doesn't Vote... posted Tue Nov 11 2008 08:22:59 by Slider
Good God - I Agree With Bill O'Reilly On Something posted Tue Sep 25 2007 23:44:18 by CPH-R
Bill O'Reilly Goes To Harlem posted Tue Sep 25 2007 06:37:33 by D L X
Bill O'Reilly Blows A Gasket posted Fri Apr 6 2007 23:58:44 by AsstChiefMark
Stephen Colbert Vs. Bill O'Reilly Tonight! posted Thu Jan 18 2007 21:14:13 by USAFHummer
Why Is Bill O'Reilly Sour? posted Thu Nov 9 2006 23:22:28 by CometII
Keith Olbermann's 09/11 Analysis And Comment posted Thu Sep 14 2006 07:17:10 by Singapore_Air
Watch Keith Olbermann - Special Comment posted Thu Aug 31 2006 03:10:55 by Bobster2
Jonathan Karl And Sean Hannity Own Hillary posted Thu Jul 13 2006 05:43:45 by NIKV69
Bill O'Reilly And The Malmedy Massacre posted Sun Jun 11 2006 17:02:55 by AirCop