PDA

View Full Version : the real Bill O'Reilly...



metalman
05-12-08, 12:08 AM
the real Bill O'Reilly... perfect for rant and rave!!!

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IAaHime9aaM&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IAaHime9aaM&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

*T*
05-12-08, 05:12 AM
Who is this fool?

metalman
05-12-08, 09:48 AM
Who is this fool?

this fool is none other than the leader of the right wing no taxes, don't regulate, kill the poor, war mongering right wing as promoted on fox tv... bill o'reilly!

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HIVnwYGU9Qo&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HIVnwYGU9Qo&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

jimmygu3
05-12-08, 10:30 AM
When I bought my PMs from Blanchard, the sales rep boasted, "You may have seen our ads on Bill O'Reilly's show on Fox News!". I said, "No, and I won't hold that against you". He shut up and got down to the business at hand.

Here's a clip from Outfoxed with O'Reilly screaming at the son of a 9/11 victim, Jeremy Glick. I especially like the text comment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OshuYcL5sGg) from a youtube user who says, "haha, you and Roger Moore can make all the video's you want..." Say what you like, but I think Moonraker holds up... :p

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OshuYcL5sGg&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OshuYcL5sGg&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Slimprofits
05-12-08, 11:38 AM
You can't mention O'Reilly without mentioning Hannity.

They both deserve the worst possible fate that is reserved for suckers of Satan's **** (borrowed from none other than Bill Hicks).

Listening to Hannity speak actually causes my blood pressure rise on the spot.

jimmygu3
05-12-08, 12:14 PM
Listening to Hannity speak actually causes my blood pressure rise on the spot.

That happens to me, too. He is so thoroughly ignorant, arrogant and offensive at all times. I tuned into his radio show one day and within 15 seconds he had said several ridiculous, obtuse and inflammatory things about NPR. Oh shoot, my BP's climbing right now....

metalman
05-12-08, 12:28 PM
That happens to me, too. He is so thoroughly ignorant, arrogant and offensive at all times. I tuned into his radio show one day and within 15 seconds he had said several ridiculous, obtuse and inflammatory things about NPR. Oh shoot, my BP's climbing right now....

don't like national communist radio, either. smarmy, smug, elitist... yuk. no better than the msm on housing bubble, etc.

jimmygu3
05-12-08, 02:13 PM
don't like national communist radio, either. smarmy, smug, elitist... yuk. no better than the msm on housing bubble, etc.

I'm no NPR junkie, in fact I rarely have time to listen to the radio, but I'll take smarmy, smug & elitist over ignorant, dogmatic fear mongering any day. IMO, left-leaning NPR atempts to give equal time to different points of view, and gives you much more than the soundbites the MSM does. In the polarized news world today, I find more balance on NPR than most other outlets. Many times I have said 'OK, I can see where the conservatives are coming from on this one' after hearing a bona fide expert have their say on NPR. The Fox MO is to get their viewers riled up saying 'The liberals are all crazy America-haters!'

I really don't want to turn this into a referendum on NPR, so that will be all I say.

Jimmy

sadsack
05-14-08, 02:58 AM
I value the rise of the right-wing media front, not because of its intrinsic value, but because of the valuable information it can reveal in conjuction with other sources.

Picture "The Truth" as the centroid of a triangle, whose vertices are defined by the various propaganda/viewpoints such as "Left," Right," and "Center/Other." With these three points, one can triangulate the inferred position of the "truth centroid" with much greater accuracy than if one had only two points of referece; e.g. MSM and NPR alone.

FRED
05-14-08, 09:31 AM
I value the rise of the right-wing media front, not because of its intrinsic value, but because of the valuable information it can reveal in conjuction with other sources.

Picture "The Truth" as the centroid of a triangle, whose vertices are defined by the various propaganda/viewpoints such as "Left," Right," and "Center/Other." With these three points, one can triangulate the inferred position of the "truth centroid" with much greater accuracy than if one had only two points of referece; e.g. MSM and NPR alone.

That is precisely the iTulip philosophy. We appreciate the free market fundamentalist utopians pushing hard to turn the US economy into a free-for-all without any institutions to maintain property rights and security against the socialists whose utopia is fairness by the hand of the State in every decision. The most functional societies operate, of course, in the midpoint between the two extremes.


Worldmap of Corruption

http://www.itulip.com/images/World_Map_Index_of_perception_of_corruptionSM.jpg (http://www.itulip.com/images/World_Map_Index_of_perception_of_corruption.jpg)

Rajiv
05-14-08, 11:19 AM
[center]Worldmap of Corruption


From the Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index)



Early CPIs used public opinion surveys, but now only "experts" are used.

Also, what is legally defined, or perceived, to be corruption differs between jurisdictions: a political donation legal in some jurisdiction may be illegal in another; a matter viewed as acceptable tipping in one country may be viewed as bribery in another.

Criticism

Corruption perception index has sometimes been criticized as the perception of a selected few since it ignores the perception of wider population and focuses on perception of the experts. Furthermore, some have opined that the index analyzes a "mere perception" and the method followed in preparing the index could not measure institutional corruption.

c1ue
05-14-08, 01:43 PM
It is interesting how the supposed 'Bush-ization' of certain media channels is thought to be new.

It is classic guerrilla tactics to force your opponent to extremes; doing so polarizes the populace and hopefully brings enough momentum to your side to make you credible.

Guerrillas can't survive if a large part of the population doesn't care, but guerrillas can prosper if they can convert the ratio to 70/30, or even 80/20 against them.

The genius of Rove - whether deliberate or not - was exactly in pushing the populace into picking a side.

WDCRob
05-14-08, 02:00 PM
I value the rise of the right-wing media front, not because of its intrinsic value, but because of the valuable information it can reveal in conjuction with other sources.

Picture "The Truth" as the centroid of a triangle, whose vertices are defined by the various propaganda/viewpoints such as "Left," Right," and "Center/Other." With these three points, one can triangulate the inferred position of the "truth centroid" with much greater accuracy than if one had only two points of referece; e.g. MSM and NPR alone.

I couldn't disagree with this model more. IMO the idea that the truth is available by consulting both sides of an argument, no matter how ridiculous one may be, is exactly what's led the mainstream media to adopt the policy of providing equal time and equal credence to both sides of any and all arguments.

The truth is often found on the fringes of an argument - for example, where iTulip previously resided in the vast ocean of information. Five years ago virtually no one was listening to the arguments here and the positions were unknown.

Yet IMO there's was a great deal of truth to be found here. And iTulip has gradually moved into the mainstream. Not by triangulating with what others were saying, but by being RIGHT without regard for what others are saying.

As for the MSM - it's vapid and useless if you're searching for truth. Its only function now with regards to policy discussions is to be an easily usable and entirely predictable tool to help reframe national discussions in your favor - regardless of whether you are right or truthful. Or as a guide to determine which side is "winning" at any given moment.

FRED
05-14-08, 04:43 PM
I couldn't disagree with this model more. IMO the idea that the truth is available by consulting both sides of an argument, no matter how ridiculous one may be, is exactly what's led the mainstream media to adopt the policy of providing equal time and equal credence to both sides of any and all arguments.

The truth is often found on the fringes of an argument - for example, where iTulip previously resided in the vast ocean of information. Five years ago virtually no one was listening to the arguments here and the positions were unknown. Or as a guide to determine which side is "winning" at any given moment.

Yet IMO there's was a great deal of truth to be found here. And iTulip has gradually moved into the mainstream. Not by triangulating with what others were saying, but by being RIGHT without regard for what others are saying.

As for the MSM - it's vapid and useless if you're searching for truth. Its only function now with regards to policy discussions is to be an easily usable and entirely predictable tool to help reframe national discussions in your favor - regardless of whether you are right or truthful.

That's our observation, too. Two year old iTulip heresy is now mainstream. The press is about "news" and news is whatever is happening. Another problem with the triangle model: The MSM are talking through a gigantic bullhorn while the truth comes out through a kazoo. Not an even match.

jimmygu3
05-14-08, 05:54 PM
I couldn't disagree with this model more. IMO the idea that the truth is available by consulting both sides of an argument, no matter how ridiculous one may be, is exactly what's led the mainstream media to adopt the policy of providing equal time and equal credence to both sides of any and all arguments.

The truth is often found on the fringes of an argument - for example, where iTulip previously resided in the vast ocean of information. Five years ago virtually no one was listening to the arguments here and the positions were unknown. Or as a guide to determine which side is "winning" at any given moment.

Yet IMO there's was a great deal of truth to be found here. And iTulip has gradually moved into the mainstream. Not by triangulating with what others were saying, but by being RIGHT without regard for what others are saying.

As for the MSM - it's vapid and useless if you're searching for truth. Its only function now with regards to policy discussions is to be an easily usable and entirely predictable tool to help reframe national discussions in your favor - regardless of whether you are right or truthful.

You nailed it, WDCRob. It's like hearing conflicting testimony from a criminal and a victim and deciding that the truth must lie somewhere in the middle. So-called journalists simply regurgitate both sides of a story without a bit of reasonable investigation to discover the truth, for fear that they will be labeled 'biased'.

Spartacus
05-14-08, 07:43 PM
Sadsack, I cannot find it now but there was a book about "left wing media"

The author interviewed James Baker (HW Bush's secretary of state) and a bunch of think tank insiders. They basically admit the entire "the media is left wing" was a planned long-term strategy - a Goebbels style campaign, with that mantra the centrepiece, to be repeated by all at every opportunity.

The instigators knew and admitted there was no meaningful left bias.

IMHO there's been no "rise of right-wing media", with the implication that right wing media was held down before.

A much more accurate description is "the rise of media that's more right-wing than what came before".


I value the rise of the right-wing media front, not because of its intrinsic value, but because of the valuable information it can reveal in conjuction with other sources.

Picture "The Truth" as the centroid of a triangle, whose vertices are defined by the various propaganda/viewpoints such as "Left," Right," and "Center/Other." With these three points, one can triangulate the inferred position of the "truth centroid" with much greater accuracy than if one had only two points of referece; e.g. MSM and NPR alone.

WDCRob
05-14-08, 08:13 PM
I think there's actually been plenty of research that suggests most reporters are/were liberal. And IMO that bias was evident in a lot of what they did. But it was just that - a bias. For the most part it was a point of pride for reporters that they present a story fairly, and that viewers/listeners not be able to discern their personal views on a subject.

That's completely different than the creation of an entire hierarchy of overtly partisan right-wing media outlets that were conceived, funded and built with the express purpose of electing Republicans.

sadsack
05-14-08, 11:04 PM
Sadsack, I cannot find it now but there was a book about "left wing media"

The author interviewed James Baker (HW Bush's secretary of state) and a bunch of think tank insiders. They basically admit the entire "the media is left wing" was a planned long-term strategy - a Goebbels style campaign, with that mantra the centrepiece, to be repeated by all at every opportunity.

The instigators knew and admitted there was no meaningful left bias.

IMHO there's been no "rise of right-wing media", with the implication that right wing media was held down before.

A much more accurate description is "the rise of media that's more right-wing than what came before".

All I can say in my defense is this:

I would argue that what is not reported is at least as important as what is reported. I.e., the effect of "selection bias" on the stories/viewpoints that are expressed is much more important than the idiosyncracies of the actual presentation.

(Possibly weak) case in point:

In the recent 60 Minutes interview of Sam Alito by Stahl, it was manifestly apparent to me that Stahl was blindly reading from a script. Any time that Alito delivered a piercing (oftentimes ironic/sarcastic) point, he did nothing more than fling an idea far above the poor woman's head ("air shot").

The net result was, "I don't understand this, so next topic." I.e., any opportunity for the audience to gain a meaningful measure of understanding of the topic at hand was summarily dismissed because the interviewer wasn't "scoring enough points" against Alito.

I have a more positive opinon on such PBS shows as Frontline and Charlie Rose, where a greater measure of intelligent interaction (more so in the case of CR) is permitted.

In sum, "triangulation" is needed most when nearly everyone is talking about everything else in the room but the elephant. If signs point to the spot of interest being at point "X," (if only by it's nearly unanimous exclusion) but nothing is being remotely said about "X," then the (admittedly "grossly ad hoc") method of ideological triangulation can prove useful.

Another case in point: The iTulip vs. Mish polarity/conflict.

Along comes Williams with his revised hyperinflation thesis, and iTulipers, including EJ himself, re-evaluate their viewpoints (to various degrees) as a result of this new datum - triangulation is occurring.


Remember: the centroid is the center of mass of a triangle. You can have triangles that are little more than straight lines. Geometrically, the centroid of a given triangle can only naively be assumed to reside in the approximate visual center.

In a true polarity, all one has is a line, providing no information as to the locus of the relevant point along said line. iTulip provides me with a valuable data point outside the plane of "L vs. R." In similar fashion, if all I had were the MSM (main stream media) and iTulip, I would be missing information from the "paleo-conservative" viewpoint.

Spartacus
05-28-08, 09:54 PM
small update

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/28/mcclellan/index.html

Slimprofits
06-01-08, 05:54 PM
I am absolutely loving how the Clinton backers are playing up her resounding victory in the Puerto Rican primary as strong evidence of her electability in the General election. They don't vote in the general election and anyone, please correct me if I'm wrong here, PR isn't representative of the U.S.A. in general.

And I'm not buying into the line that if Clinton isn't nominated, that Democrats will stay home on Nov. 4th in droves. The next President is likely going to appoint at least one SCOTUS justice. From what I've learned about Democrat fanboys and fangirls over the years, that is the most important issue to most of them.

algerwetmore
06-01-08, 08:20 PM
I agree with your assessment of the Clintons' victory in the Puerto Rican primary. As to your assessment of democrats staying home in droves, if she isn't elected may be a bit of a moot point.
Whoever is elected will only survive 1 term, and the problems will be insurmountable, at least on the domestic agenda. I wouldn't wish anybody to be president in the middle of a ka-boom cycle.