Barack Obama on Bill O'Reilly

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Diemen, I actually feel sorry for you. I really do. I dont agree with most of your opinions but at least you try to support them with some sort of facts. It is sad that you are so blinded by either hate of the conservative belief system of the right or your faith in a person like Obama had so clouded your judgement that you can actually try to justify a relationship like this by passing it off as nothing more than, "fear based ad's."

This is the funniest thing I've ever read in here. :up:
 
Who cares how old he was? Hitler died 40 years before I was born. That doesn't mean I would ever be friends with him.

They sat on an anti-poverty board together. How does that make them friends? McCain received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Charles Keating back in the 80s. Who cares?
 
Who cares how old he was? Hitler died 40 years before I was born. That doesn't mean I would ever be friends with him.



you can only get away with that statement
because we do not have a time machine to verify if it really is true.
 
Who cares how old he was? Hitler died 40 years before I was born. That doesn't mean I would ever be friends with him.

They sat on a board together. Look, you got fed a lie and you believed it, because you wanted to... end of story.

Take some of your own advice:

Please. Your partisanship is blinding you to common sense and rationality. Get some fresh air.
 
what i remember about the HRC/BillO interview,

is that HRC ate him alive.

I watched this. It's remarkable to me how others don't see just how far O'Riley is out of his element when someone with real knowledge shows up.

there is obviously a lot of racism in America

that is the only reason this contest is even close

Obama legitimately should be up by about 10 points
but too many people just can't get past his race

this is so unfortunately, true.

I always found it strange that a lot of the same people who are outraged about Wright also happen to believe that Obama is a Muslim. I've wondered how they reconcile the two.

(I'm not referring to anyone here)

My son is in a constant shouting match with one of his life long friends and some others - over "is he or not, a Muslim?" They are thirty something.
You would think they could see through this type of tactic by now.

They sat on an anti-poverty board together. How does that make them friends? McCain received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Charles Keating back in the 80s. Who cares?

they don't, the one's who even know who Keating is in the first place. They probably still applaud him. With the exception of him getting caught and the scheme falling apart. But it was good while it lasted, for many involved.
 
I watched this. It's remarkable to me how others don't see just how far O'Riley is out of his element when someone with real knowledge shows up.

If your assumption is that O'Reilly is out to destroy Clinton/Obama in these interviews, I think that is a wrong assumption.
 
If your assumption is that O'Reilly is out to destroy Clinton/Obama in these interviews, I think that is a wrong assumption.



my assumption is that, no matter who he interviews, BillO is out to reinforce the core message of his brand so he can sell more Factor t-shirts, hats, and books.
 
I don't honestly know anything about this Ayers thing.



they've seen each other a few times in person,

and Obama didn't take out his moose rifle and gun him down on the spot for crimes against freedom like Palin would have.

thus, Obama is a terrorist who hates America.
 
Diemen, I actually feel sorry for you. I really do. I dont agree with most of your opinions but at least you try to support them with some sort of facts. It is sad that you are so blinded by either hate of the conservative belief system of the right or your faith in a person like Obama had so clouded your judgement that you can actually try to justify a relationship like this by passing it off as nothing more than, "fear based ad's."

I've not seen someone come into FYM on such an anti-liberal, ultra-defensive blaze of glory in a long, long time. You spend half the time expressing your opinions and half the time with your face in your palm, somewhere between bewildered and appalled that people have the views they do in favor of Obama. We get it, you're conservative. We get it, you prefer McCain to Obama. OK. Let's just talk about the issues, please.
 
I don't understand the backlash to Olbermann in here recently.

What's changed so much about him?

I just had a conversation about this with a friend yesterday, so I'll sum it up (it's sort of long, sorry).

I don't know much has changed about his egotism. His recent comment to Joe Scarborough was absolutely bafflingly rude, as Scarborough, aside from maybe (ironically in both cases) Pat Buchanan, have been among the most objective political analysts I've seen anywhere on cable news. What Olbermann didn't like was that Scarborough would dare even imply it was a close race with McCain. That's just sheer stupidity, as well as laden with heavy doses of irrationality. Add in the jerk factor, which I wasn't really aware of until most recently and I think even some who still enjoy his show are starting to grow a little sour on him. He's supposed to be the antithesis of O'Reilly not the other side of the coin!! So, I think some are quite frankly just flat disappointed in him.

You know why I think he reacted that way towards Scarborough? Because Scarborough was nearly the only soul on MSNBC (Dan Abrams and a few analysts as well) that didn't treat Hillary Clinton as the 'Spawn of Satan', so Olbie resented that. He thinks he runs the fucking place over there. I don't even think Chris Matthews likes him much anymore. Do not veer off the 'chosen' path, Chris! That's another problem, many of his trusted viewers actually liked Hillary Clinton and grew sour when he had not only jumped in the tank, he bought the fucking tank and jerked off in it. I watch MSNBC most often, because I detest both Fox News and CNN. And I like most of their talking heads, even the most biased and from the extremes. Rachel Maddow and Pat Buchanan are both great.

For me, it's not about voicing opinions, most Americans (like myself) enjoy opinionated programming, if it's ESPN, American Idol or Cable News. I have no problem with that. What bothers me the most is dishonesty and hypocrisy in 'reporting' whether that's true objective journalism or editorial opinions (like Olbermann or O'Reilly). The least they can do is be consistent and forthright.

I used to listen to his 'Special Comments' to/about Bush and nearly agreed with every word, yet I would come away thinking "who does this self important blowhard really think he is?" but that was nothing more than a dislike of his attitude on my part. I don't need to like his attitude to enjoy his show, I watch O'Reilly as well from time to time. (usually I am flipping channels at commercial breaks regardless of who or what I'm watching). I don't think I saw the intellectual dishonesty at that time. So maybe that is truly what has changed, this latent, intellectually dishonest viewpoint surfacing through his outright infatuation with Obama.

What has really turned Olbie from maybe self-important blowhard to hypocrite has been his evolving into the Leftist champion while still railing on Fox News for doing the exact same thing. While it seems, increasingly so, that MSNBC has decided to counter-program Fox (which I don't have a problem with). Olbermann still sits on his soapbox on that network and blasts Fox for doing many of the same things. That's hypocrisy, period. The next time Olbie blasts Bill-O, just ask yourself, couldn't he say this same thing about himself if a few words were changed around? More often than not, that answer is 'yes'. Olbermann sees himself the same way Bill O'Reilly sees himself. Their version of objective truth always matches their own opinions.

So here is a clear distinction between what Olbermann does and what O'Reiily does. O'Reiily will allow someone on his show to knock down his 'objective truth'. He acknowledges that he might not own the monopoly on truth, believe it or not, you wouldn't know that from 'Countdown'.

O'Reilly will go on a rant about "secular progressives" and then he'll find a "secular progressive" with enough balls to come on his show. Agree with him or not, 1-it's usually pretty good TV, 2-that's a pretty fair way of presenting an issue to his audience (although it's generally a strawman-like guest). So, it's not ideal but he is demonstrating a willingness to present dissent to his own views. Olbermann has not ONCE, and if you can show me ONCE, I'll be floored, presented a dissenting view to his own opinions.

Ok, so why is this?
Is he afraid of the argument? I seriously doubt it. He's extremely intelligent, quick witted and articulate. I would imagine he would be a vicious 'debater'.
So again, why does he do this? Because he has no inherent interest to provide his viewer with the idea that his views may be flawed. He sees his analysis as objective unto itself.

So that's where the dishonesty comes in. You might ask "does he have to present those views? It's his own show, he can do what he wants!!" Yes, that's absolutely fine with me, if he wanted to come right out and say "I am not interested in dissenting views, my analysis is the TRUTH on this show". Sort of like Shaun Hannity or Rush does on his radio show. Fuck the opposition, this is my show!!! Fair enough.

Okay but he doesn't do that. He brings on news analysts that always agree with him!! He's telling the viewer "see, see, verified across this objective journalist source!!! (Richard Wolffe or Dana Milbank come to mind). So, he' operating as if he's presenting this dissenting objective view. In this light, he's holding himself above O'Reilly. "I bring on real journalists, who analyze my opinions!" It's ever-so convenient that they always mirror his views.

Let's suppose he did give a mea culpa to his audience "look, I am under no pretense that I have any objectivity left". That would be a forthright and honest thing to do. But what would it do to his blasting of FOX News and Bill Oreilly which so many of his viewers eat up? What would that say about the "objective" analysts that come on his show? He can't do it. So he has to continue the charade of being intellectually dishonest. You see, his ratings are doing better than ever because people don't want him to be that. They want him to be like O'Reilly in much of the same regard that the people who watch O'Reilly want him to be just as he is.

O'Reilly for all his warts, many shared with Olbermann, will at the very least sit face to face with the people he lambastes. So my last shot at Olbermann, is not only is he intellectually dishonest, a hypocrite, a self important blowhard, and a jerk, he's also a coward. Watch how Rachel Maddow runs her show, and I would bet you'll see the difference in how an admitted liberal, opinionated talking head should be handling themselves. I hope she doesn't disappoint me but I am not as Left as she is but I appreciate her not insulting my intelligence every time I hear her speak.
 
I've not seen someone come into FYM on such an anti-liberal, ultra-defensive blaze of glory in a long, long time. You spend half the time expressing your opinions and half the time with your face in your palm, somewhere between bewildered and appalled that people have the views they do in favor of Obama. We get it, you're conservative. We get it, you prefer McCain to Obama. OK. Let's just talk about the issues, please.

:applaud:
 
I just had a conversation about this with a friend yesterday, so I'll sum it up (it's sort of long, sorry).

I don't know much has changed about his egotism. His recent comment to Joe Scarborough was absolutely bafflingly rude, as Scarborough, aside from maybe (ironically in both cases) Pat Buchanan, have been among the most objective political analysts I've seen anywhere on cable news. What Olbermann didn't like was that Scarborough would dare even imply it was a close race with McCain. That's just sheer stupidity, as well as laden with heavy doses of irrationality. Add in the jerk factor, which I wasn't really aware of until most recently and I think even some who still enjoy his show are starting to grow a little sour on him. He's supposed to be the antithesis of O'Reilly not the other side of the coin!! So, I think some are quite frankly just flat disappointed in him.

You know why I think he reacted that way towards Scarborough? Because Scarborough was nearly the only soul on MSNBC (Dan Abrams and a few analysts as well) that didn't treat Hillary Clinton as the 'Spawn of Satan', so Olbie resented that. He thinks he runs the fucking place over there. I don't even think Chris Matthews likes him much anymore. Do not veer off the 'chosen' path, Chris! That's another problem, many of his trusted viewers actually liked Hillary Clinton and grew sour when he had not only jumped in the tank, he bought the fucking tank and jerked off in it. I watch MSNBC most often, because I detest both Fox News and CNN. And I like most of their talking heads, even the most biased and from the extremes. Rachel Maddow and Pat Buchanan are both great.

For me, it's not about voicing opinions, most Americans (like myself) enjoy opinionated programming, if it's ESPN, American Idol or Cable News. I have no problem with that. What bothers me the most is dishonesty and hypocrisy in 'reporting' whether that's true objective journalism or editorial opinions (like Olbermann or O'Reilly). The least they can do is be consistent and forthright.

I used to listen to his 'Special Comments' to/about Bush and nearly agreed with every word, yet I would come away thinking "who does this self important blowhard really think he is?" but that was nothing more than a dislike of his attitude on my part. I don't need to like his attitude to enjoy his show, I watch O'Reilly as well from time to time. (usually I am flipping channels at commercial breaks regardless of who or what I'm watching). I don't think I saw the intellectual dishonesty at that time. So maybe that is truly what has changed, this latent, intellectually dishonest viewpoint surfacing through his outright infatuation with Obama.

What has really turned Olbie from maybe self-important blowhard to hypocrite has been his evolving into the Leftist champion while still railing on Fox News for doing the exact same thing. While it seems, increasingly so, that MSNBC has decided to counter-program Fox (which I don't have a problem with). Olbermann still sits on his soapbox on that network and blasts Fox for doing many of the same things. That's hypocrisy, period. The next time Olbie blasts Bill-O, just ask yourself, couldn't he say this same thing about himself if a few words were changed around? More often than not, that answer is 'yes'. Olbermann sees himself the same way Bill O'Reilly sees himself. Their version of objective truth always matches their own opinions.

So here is a clear distinction between what Olbermann does and what O'Reiily does. O'Reiily will allow someone on his show to knock down his 'objective truth'. He acknowledges that he might not own the monopoly on truth, believe it or not, you wouldn't know that from 'Countdown'.

O'Reilly will go on a rant about "secular progressives" and then he'll find a "secular progressive" with enough balls to come on his show. Agree with him or not, 1-it's usually pretty good TV, 2-that's a pretty fair way of presenting an issue to his audience (although it's generally a strawman-like guest). So, it's not ideal but he is demonstrating a willingness to present dissent to his own views. Olbermann has not ONCE, and if you can show me ONCE, I'll be floored, presented a dissenting view to his own opinions.

Ok, so why is this?
Is he afraid of the argument? I seriously doubt it. He's extremely intelligent, quick witted and articulate. I would imagine he would be a vicious 'debater'.
So again, why does he do this? Because he has no inherent interest to provide his viewer with the idea that his views may be flawed. He sees his analysis as objective unto itself.

So that's where the dishonesty comes in. You might ask "does he have to present those views? It's his own show, he can do what he wants!!" Yes, that's absolutely fine with me, if he wanted to come right out and say "I am not interested in dissenting views, my analysis is the TRUTH on this show". Sort of like Shaun Hannity or Rush does on his radio show. Fuck the opposition, this is my show!!! Fair enough.

Okay but he doesn't do that. He brings on news analysts that always agree with him!! He's telling the viewer "see, see, verified across this objective journalist source!!! (Richard Wolffe or Dana Milbank come to mind). So, he' operating as if he's presenting this dissenting objective view. In this light, he's holding himself above O'Reilly. "I bring on real journalists, who analyze my opinions!" It's ever-so convenient that they always mirror his views.

Let's suppose he did give a mea culpa to his audience "look, I am under no pretense that I have any objectivity left". That would be a forthright and honest thing to do. But what would it do to his blasting of FOX News and Bill Oreilly which so many of his viewers eat up? What would that say about the "objective" analysts that come on his show? He can't do it. So he has to continue the charade of being intellectually dishonest. You see, his ratings are doing better than ever because people don't want him to be that. They want him to be like O'Reilly in much of the same regard that the people who watch O'Reilly want him to be just as he is.

O'Reilly for all his warts, many shared with Olbermann, will at the very least sit face to face with the people he lambastes. So my last shot at Olbermann, is not only is he intellectually dishonest, a hypocrite, a self important blowhard, and a jerk, he's also a coward. Watch how Rachel Maddow runs her show, and I would bet you'll see the difference in how an admitted liberal, opinionated talking head should be handling themselves. I hope she doesn't disappoint me but I am not as Left as she is but I appreciate her not insulting my intelligence every time I hear her speak.

You make some interesting points.

You're right, Olbermann doesn't have any dissenting viewpoints on his show. However, I'd hate it if he did in the way that O'Reilly does. I find O'Reilly's style of having dissenting viewpoints on his show to be disingenious and annoying, because he has no interest in actually having a serious discourse. All he wants to do is try to get his guest to say something he disagrees with, and show the world how smart he is by proving them wrong. That's all it is. I'd rather Olbermann not have dissenting viewpoints on his show than to have them on that way.

Also - and this does not necessarily respond directly to anything in your post - I don't think Olbermann does anything on his show even approaching the sheer level of obnoxiousness of Bill's mailbag. It's like, "Hi Bill, you're awesome! You're right about everything! John Smith from somewhere", "Well, thank you John Smith from somewhere, I appreciate it." It's a roundabout way of complimenting himself.

Olbermann's got a huge ego, no argument - you don't get to the top of your profession without having an ego - but it's not even close to O'Reilly's. Imo, of course.

I only recollect one time where Olbermann claimed to be objective, and this was during one his 'worst person in the world' things, in response to somebody in McCain's campaign saying that MSNBC was not objective. Other than this, I don't remember any time in which Olbermann explicitly stated his objectivity.

If you want MSNBC to come out and say, 'yeah we're liberal', then you should also want Fox to come out and say, 'yeah, we're conservative', instead of continually blowing out their 'fair and balanced' line.

Yes, MSNBC is liberal. Frankly, if Fox was going to be so far right, there needed to be a channel that acted as a counterpoint on the other side. CNN is too centrist anymore.

P.S.Buchanan may be good - though I'd argue that - but you have to know he's only on MSNBC because they needed a 'token conservative'.
 
CNN is too centrist anymore.

I like that about them. To me, centrist = balanced, whereby I can hear opposing viewpoints presented in a non-shouty manner. In my opinion, if you surround yourself with only viewpoints you agree with, you're more likely to fall prey to group-think.

I don't get MSNBC here, but I've seen plenty of clips online, and it seems to me they've become the leftist version of Fox. I can't stand the Fox style of reporting, so I'm certainly not fond of it coming from another network, even if they are closer to my political views. It's very offputting. Let me hear both sides presented in a reasonable manner, and I can decide for myself.
 
Olbermann is more overtly biased than anyone on Fox, save Hannity, but MSNBC as a whole is more balanced than Fox as a whole. Can anyone imagine a Democrat having his own show on Fox, like republican Scarborough does on MSNBC? It would never happen.

But about Obama on O'Reilly. I watch O'Reilly every night. I even Tivo it if I'm not home. It's a guilty pleasure, like reading the National Enquirer in the line at the market. As long as you don't expect to hear the truth, it can be wildly entertaining.

So why a serious person like Obama would lend credibility to that circus by agreeing to appear on the show is beyond me.
 
But about Obama on O'Reilly. I watch O'Reilly every night. I even Tivo it if I'm not home. It's a guilty pleasure, like reading the National Enquirer in the line at the market. As long as you don't expect to hear the truth, it can be wildly entertaining.

So why a serious person like Obama would lend credibility to that circus by agreeing to appear on the show is beyond me.

I would love to watch O'Reilly just for the sheer idiocy of the things that come out of his mouth, but, honestly, after a minute or two, I'm ready to give up my stance on gun control and shoot my TV. And for the record, I think Olbermann's a douche too, but I do tend to agree with his POV more, obviously.
 
So why a serious person like Obama would lend credibility to that circus by agreeing to appear on the show is beyond me.

Sometimes, when you're trying to appeal to wider audiences, you have to speak on a platform that they relate to. Like it or not, a lot of people do take Bill O'Reilly and what he says seriously.
 
If your assumption is that O'Reilly is out to destroy Clinton/Obama in these interviews, I think that is a wrong assumption.

and this wasn't my assumption at all. Which reeks of the same tactics that O'Riley uses. Twist it and make it sound like the subject at hand.
My comment was to point out the fact that O'Riley was out of his element with Hillary Clinton and it always shows when he goes above his station.
He is no where near the league of Hillary Clinton, and Obama for that matter. That's all..
 
I would love to watch O'Reilly just for the sheer idiocy of the things that come out of his mouth, but, honestly, after a minute or two, I'm ready to give up my stance on gun control and shoot my TV. And for the record, I think Olbermann's a douche too, but I do tend to agree with his POV more, obviously.

Oh Jesus, I just read this and haven't stopped laughing.
Thank You..:wink:
 
Sometimes, when you're trying to appeal to wider audiences, you have to speak on a platform that they relate to. Like it or not, a lot of people do take Bill O'Reilly and what he says seriously.

No one under 70. Trust me, I work in the media and Bill O'Reilly is an industry joke. And not just among liberals either. Ever see anyone of any importance, conservative or liberal, maintain a straight face on that show? No one takes it very seriously. They know what it is. They appear only because of its massive audience. His ratings are right up there with WWF. Similar in make-up too.
 
IL State Rep campaign, not presidential.

Ah, ok. Thanks for clearing that up.:up: I can't say I really care. I'd have the same reaction if McCain had made his campaign announcement from Keating's house. They know some people who have done illegal things and they're friendly acquaintances, it doesn't really say anything about them, though.
 
Back
Top Bottom