• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Is O'Reilly really this much of a bitch?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Suranga3

Member
I've never watched the show, but I just found this transcript from an older show of his. He's "debating" with a son of a port authority working who died in the 9/11 attacks:


-------------------------------
In the "Personal Stories" segment tonight, we were surprised to find out than an American who lost his father in the World Trade Center attack had signed an anti-war advertisement that accused the USA itself of terrorism.

The offending passage read, "We too watched with shock the horrific events of September 11... we too mourned the thousands of innocent dead and shook our heads at the terrible scenes of carnage -- even as we recalled similar scenes in Baghdad, Panama City, and a generation ago, Vietnam."

With us now is Jeremy Glick, whose father, Barry, was a Port Authority worker at the Trade Center. Mr. Glick is a co-author of the book "Another World is Possible."

I'm surprised you signed this. You were the only one of all of the families who signed...

Jeremy Glick: Well, actually, that's not true.

O'Reilly: Who signed the advertisement?

Glick: Peaceful Tomorrow, which represents 9/11 families, were also involved.

O'Reilly: Hold it, hold it, hold it, Jeremy. You're the only one who signed this advertisement.

Glick: As an individual.

O'Reilly: Yes, as -- with your name. You were the only one. I was surprised, and the reason I was surprised is that this ad equates the United States with the terrorists. And I was offended by that.

Glick: Well, you say -- I remember earlier you said it was a moral equivalency, and it's actually a material equivalency. And just to back up for a second about your surprise, I'm actually shocked that you're surprised. If you think about it, our current president, who I feel and many feel is in this position illegitimately by neglecting the voices of Afro-Americans in the Florida coup, which, actually, somebody got impeached for during the Reconstruction period -- Our current president now inherited a legacy from his father and inherited a political legacy that's responsible for training militarily, economically, and situating geopolitically the parties involved in the alleged assassination and the murder of my father and countless of thousands of others. So I don't see why it's surprising...

O'Reilly: All right. Now let me stop you here. So...

Glick: ... for you to think that I would come back and want to support...

O'Reilly: It is surprising, and I'll tell you why. I'll tell you why it's surprising.

Glick: ... escalating...

O'Reilly: You are mouthing a far left position that is a marginal position in this society, which you're entitled to.

Glick: It's marginal -- right.

O'Reilly: You're entitled to it, all right, but you're -- you see, even -- I'm sure your beliefs are sincere, but what upsets me is I don't think your father would be approving of this.

Glick: Well, actually, my father thought that Bush's presidency was illegitimate.

O'Reilly: Maybe he did, but...

Glick: I also didn't think that Bush...

O'Reilly: ... I don't think he'd be equating this country as a terrorist nation as you are.

Glick: Well, I wasn't saying that it was necessarily like that.

O'Reilly: Yes, you are. You signed...

Glick: What I'm saying is...

O'Reilly: ... this, and that absolutely said that.

Glick: ... is that in -- six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government.

O'Reilly: All right. I don't want to...

Glick: Maybe...

O'Reilly: I don't want to debate world politics with you.

Glick: Well, why not? This is about world politics.

O'Reilly: Because, No. 1, I don't really care what you think.

Glick: Well, OK.

O'Reilly: You're -- I want to...

Glick: But you do care because you...

O'Reilly: No, no. Look...

Glick: The reason why you care is because you evoke 9/11...

O'Reilly: Here's why I care.

Glick: ... to rationalize...

O'Reilly: Here's why I care...

Glick: Let me finish. You evoke 9/11 to rationalize everything from domestic plunder to imperialistic aggression worldwide.

O'Reilly: OK. That's a bunch...

Glick: You evoke sympathy with the 9/11 families.

O'Reilly: That's a bunch of crap. I've done more for the 9/11 families by their own admission -- I've done more for them than you will ever hope to do.

Glick: OK.

O'Reilly: So you keep your mouth shut when you sit here exploiting those people.

Glick: Well, you're not representing me. You're not representing me.

O'Reilly: And I'd never represent you. You know why?

Glick: Why?

O'Reilly: Because you have a warped view of this world and a warped view of this country.

Glick: Well, explain that. Let me give you an example of a parallel...

O'Reilly: No, I'm not going to debate this with you, all right.

Glick: Well, let me give you an example of parallel experience. On September 14...

O'Reilly: No, no. Here's -- here's the...

Glick: On September 14...

O'Reilly: Here's the record.

Glick: OK.

O'Reilly: All right. You didn't support the action against Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. You were against it, OK.

Glick: Why would I want to brutalize and further punish the people in Afghanistan...

O'Reilly: Who killed your father!

Glick: The people in Afghanistan...

O'Reilly: Who killed your father.

Glick: ... didn't kill my father.

O'Reilly: Sure they did. The al Qaeda people were trained there.

Glick: The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people?

O'Reilly: See, I'm more angry about it than you are!

Glick: So what about George Bush?

O'Reilly: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it.

Glick: The director -- senior as director of the CIA.

O'Reilly: He had nothing to do with it.

Glick: So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who were...

O'Reilly: Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this.

Glick: Well, I hope she is.

O'Reilly: I hope your mother is not watching this because you -- that's it. I'm not going to say anymore.

Glick: OK.

O'Reilly: In respect for your father...

Glick: On September 14, do you want to know what I'm doing?

O'Reilly: Shut up. Shut up.

Glick: Oh, please don't tell me to shut up.

O'Reilly: As respect -- as respect -- in respect for your father, who was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed unnecessarily by barbarians...

Glick: By radical extremists who were trained by this government...

O'Reilly: Out of respect for him...

Glick: ... not the people of America.

O'Reilly: ... I'm not going to...

Glick: ... The people of the ruling class, the small minority.

O'Reilly: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of respect for your father.

We will be back in a moment with more of THE FACTOR.

Glick: That means we're done?

O'Reilly: We're done.

End transcript



O'Reilly cut his mic, ranted on and on about knowing the kid's own father better than the kid did.
 

bishoptl

Banstick Emeritus
Hell, I didn't even have to click on this thread to know the answer was "Yes".

Then I did click and all my suspicions were confirmed.
 

Wolfy

Banned
I saw the Glick interview and this guy was just being an (I can't say it). Not only that, a lot of his facts were wrong.

Check out this one:

GLICK: ... is that in -- six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government.


First of all George Bush the First was head of the CIA from 30 January 1976 to 20 January 1977.

That was two years before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and a year before Taraki (aka Turaki) came to power. So how can George Bush have anything to with a movement to overthrow a government that doesn't exist anymore? How can he have anything to do with a guerilla movement opposed to an invasion that has even happened yet?

Now lets look at this Taraki (Glick says Turaki) fellow and his supposed "democratic" government. Taraki was communist who started a bloody coup against the communist leader of Afghanistan (Khan) in which Khan and his entire government were executed. Taraki immediately established relations with the Soviet Union and started mass arrests of those who he felt opposed him. Some democratic government eh?

Glick brings up George H. Bush a lot in the interview and tries to blame him for the creation of Mujahideen:

Our current president now inherited a legacy from his father and inherited a political legacy that's responsible for training militarily, economically, and situating geopolitically the parties involved in the alleged assassination and the murder of my father and countless of thousands of others.


O'REILLY: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: The director -- senior as director of the CIA.



Also, if even you actually watched the interview and not read the transcript, it seriously looked like Glick was reading from a script, much in the same the Nation editor did when she was on the O'Reilly factor. Now the left cries foul when O'Reilly shoots them down when they don't answer his question. Not to mention that Glick was a smug little (noob) who was using his father's dead body to further his own political causes.

Reading responses to O'reilly hate threads, do you guys actually even watch the fucking show? Especially the one being discussed? Don't read things for face value, had you seen the show in it's entirety you'd not have such a black and white attitude about it.

No matter what O Reilly said, Glick just continued his script based rant that was more pathetic than the DNC and RNC's talking points when their people go on any of those shows. O Reilly would ask him a question and he would ignore him and continue with his speech, O Reilly asked another question, same routine. That's asinine. If you go on O'Reilly's show, then you have to be willing to play by his rules, albeit skewed as they are.

You can't tell from the transcript, but the guy had a very smug, self-important attitude in which no one could discuss things with him. He sat down, and started giving his little pre set speech and grandstanding.

And finally, I have a hard time taking anyone who stands there and takes it (like Glick was advocating) seriously. In his mind it's ok, to just let more Americans and allied innocents receive harm than to do something about it and stop oppressive regimes while we're at it.
 

Pimpwerx

Member
There was a long thread on the old forum about that very show. Probably a couple of threads actually. Yes, he's a big, fat douche. PEACE.
 

demon

I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face
package_for_bill.jpg


HAHAHA!
 

Belfast

Member
O'Reilly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hannity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ann Coulter

Of course, that's not saying much.
 

Dead

well not really...yet
Belfast said:
O'Reilly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hannity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ann Coulter

Of course, that's not saying much.
thats like saying gallon of Vomit >>>>>>>>>bucket of shit>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>decayed corpse filled with maggots.
 

demon

I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face
You can't tell from the transcript, but the guy had a very smug, self-important attitude in which no one could discuss things with him.
I can't tell, are you talking about Glick or O'Reilly?
 

human5892

Queen of Denmark
I can't believe Bill O'Reilly had the audacity to try and tell the son what his father -- whom O'Reilly did not even know -- would've thought of him. What a fucking ass.

Oh, but he does have very impressive debating skills:
Glick: Well, explain that. Let me give you an example of a parallel...

O'Reilly: No, I'm not going to debate this with you, all right.
Glick: The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people?

O'Reilly: See, I'm more angry about it than you are!
Glick: So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who were...

O'Reilly: Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this.
Glick: On September 14, do you want to know what I'm doing?

O'Reilly: Shut up. Shut up.
Glick: ... The people of the ruling class, the small minority.

O'Reilly: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of respect for your father.
What a masterful listener! I don't see how anyone could agree with what Glick was saying in the face of O'Reilly's incredibly sharp reasoning.
 

levious

That throwing stick stunt of yours has boomeranged on us.
O'Reilly: I don't want to debate world politics with you.

That part cracks me up every time.

Wolfy,

It's not relevant to prove Glick wrong or show his innaccuracies. It would have been fantastic if O'Rielly could have said what you said, but he didn't, you know, cause he's a bitch. He's proved it over and over again in the way he "debates" with his guests.
 

Wolfy

Banned
How do you expect a commentator to be reasonable with a grandstanding person like Glick or Katrina Vandershitbag? When all they do is filibuster, cut the fucking mic!
 

demon

I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face
Ever since I saw the episode (and this was one of my first) where O'Reilly invited some guy from CNN as a guest only to spend five minutes gloating in his face about how he's kicking their asses in the ratings (and literally nothing else), I totally lost all respect for O'Reilly and his piece of shit show. And any time he goes on one of his biased, right-slanted, bible-thumping rants, I laugh in disgust (then turn the channel) at the absolutely insulting notion that his show is 'fair and balanced' and only presents "the FACTS". Yeah, right. Kiss my ass, Bill.
 
I really don't know why anyone would willingly appear on his show in the first place. Even if you have something legitimate to say, he overwhelms it and tells you to go to hell. It's presented in an interview format, but it's anything but. I don't see how anything good could come of appearing on the show lol.
 

human5892

Queen of Denmark
Semjaza Azazel said:
I really don't know why anyone would willingly appear on his show in the first place. Even if you have something legitimate to say, he overwhelms it and tells you to go to hell. It's presented in an interview format, but it's anything but. I don't see how anything good could come of appearing on the show lol.
I know, I often wonder why people who know what his show is like choose to appear on there. It's obvious nobody's going to change his mind about anything, and it's obvious that you're just going to spend your time on there being berated and having cheap shots taken at you.
 

levious

That throwing stick stunt of yours has boomeranged on us.
And he won two oscars for his work with Inside Edition... they'll never take that away from him!
 

Wolfy

Banned
He's a commentator. Get this through your head. He can say whatever he is thinking. He doesn't have to be objective about anything. The slogan of the show just means, "don't bullshit."
 

Gruco

Banned
"Take a spin in the no fact zone. We ignore the evidence and get straight to what I think."

Paraphrase. Whatever. The Colbert Report should be a real show. It looked pretty good.
 

levious

That throwing stick stunt of yours has boomeranged on us.
he's lost credibility of late... his biggest recent intellectual rival has been Stuart Smiley for the love of god.
 

fart

Savant
Gruco said:
"Take a spin in the no fact zone. We ignore the evidence and get straight to what I think."

Paraphrase. Whatever. The Colbert Report should be a real show. It looked pretty good.
i believe this news.

man, i should watch the daily show while i have cable
 

demon

I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face
Wolfy said:
Bill O'Reilly never claims that what he says is fair and balanced. Hence, he is a commentator.
Absolute bullshit. O'Reilly always purports that his show is non-biased, fair and balanced, and free of "spin". That is the biggest bucket of bullshit ever to exist on television.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Franken was one of the SNL political writers and he's picked a fight or two before anybody gave a shit about O'Reilly. At least he has that.
 

Socreges

Banned
Wolfy, "a lot of his facts were wrong"? According to you, he may have gotten two things wrong, however important. But that actually doesn't concern what people are saying. You have apparently done well in refuting Glick, but that IN NO WAY defends O'Reilly. For instance, whereas you may disprove Glick, O'Reilly says things such as:
O'Reilly: Because, No. 1, I don't really care what you think.
O'Reilly: Because you have a warped view of this world and a warped view of this country.

Glick: Well, explain that. Let me give you an example of a parallel...

O'Reilly: No, I'm not going to debate this with you, all right.
O'Reilly: Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this.
O'Reilly: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of respect for your father.
O'Reilly is just.... awful. People weren't responding to your initial post because it isn't necessarily relevant to people's complaints. O'Reilly, regardless of his show's 'stipulations', is, indeed, a bitch.


NOTE: I typed this up so long ago and left it. Now it seems irrelevant. Oh well. Maybe I explained it better.
 

Dead

well not really...yet
Wasnt it funny when O'Reilly said he hated Iraqis and that they should all be killed.

yeah, what a great guy
 

Minotauro

Finds Purchase on Dog Nutz
What really bothers me about O'Reilly is how differently he treats people from the right and the left. For left-wing people, he has phrases like "left-wing loony" or "left-wing bomb-thrower." At the same time, he has no similar terms for extremists on the right. Ann Coulter was on his show recently and made me preposterous statements such as "The War is going magnificently." After hearing this, he politely disagreed with her and stated reasons why he does. If Coulter and her statements were replaced by Michael Moore and his in this situation, O'Reilly would've lost his shit and started spewing all sorts of accusations at him.
 

MetatronM

Unconfirmed Member
Yes, Glick is a bit off on his facts, and you could even say that he does have a somewhat warped world view (as does everybody who can describe themselves as being significantly far to either side of center), but that doesn't make O'Reilly any less of a douche as a person trying to have a debate with someone. A real debater, or someone who had any interests in what others have to say would have pointed out the errors in Glick's information and had an intelligent discussion, NOT try to tell him how disappointed his dead father must be of him. Going that kind of route makes you A) an idiot and B) an asshole, plain and simple.
 

Rlan

Member
How does American Television put up with shit like O'Reily? I mean, honestly, what sort of stupid television show is filled with people who cut each other off to the point where because can only say 5 words before they're cut off by the dickhead host? Where the host keeps mentioning your family, whom he doesn't know, and continually tells the guest to shut up?

I've seen a few of these shows when my Father watches Fox news over here in Australia, where there are 4 grumpy individuals trying to have their say while yelling over each other.

Since when did news get infected with Jerry Springer?
 
American News programs are hilarious, they are more about opinions than facts. Each Network seems to have an agende, I watched Fox news once and I thought it was awful (and ironically funny) so i turned it back off again.


And yes O'Reilly is a bitch
 

Manders

Banned
I like O'Reilly. His show is quite entertaining. I actually saw that when it came on and the kid was a dick. O'Reilly rocks!
 

explodet

Member
MrPing1000 said:
American News programs are hilarious, they are more about opinions than facts.
I've noticed this too - so many of the 24 hour news stations are a bunch of talking heads, discussing and analyzing and opining about the news. The news itself seems to take a back seat - if that makes any sense.
 
O'Reillys show isnt really a "news" show... Studio B with Shepard Smith I'd say is a news show...

O'Reilly's show is more of an opinion/debate/op-ed/O'Reilly's views show....

its an extremely watchable show since you generally know O'Reilly is going to get into it with someone, he has a loud personality, and has great guests.. everyone wants to be on O'Reilly because he has the best ratings...

I dont tend to watch much in terms of news programs, but I appreciate O'Reillys show, and Hannity and Colmes, for being so watchable and interesting... Crossfire on CNN used to keep me interested until it became the same shit, and incoherent... and then it was just trying to pretend it was a fox news show and changing just to change... it became a really sad show eventually.
 

Iceman

Member
"but that doesn't make O'Reilly any less of a douche as a person trying to have a debate with someone. A real debater, or someone who had any interests in what others have to say would have pointed out the errors in Glick's information and had an intelligent discussion, NOT try to tell him how disappointed his dead father must be of him. Going that kind of route makes you A) an idiot and B) an asshole, plain and simple."

But what is the purpose of having a debate on national tv? For two individuals to have an intelligent and considerate back and forth with lots of fact checking between the two? Might as well have a tv show centered around the conversations of two high school girls.

The point of this kind of broadcast is to make a case to the public at large not to reconcile differences of opinion.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Iceman said:
But what is the purpose of having a debate on national tv? For two individuals to have an intelligent and considerate back and forth with lots of fact checking between the two? Might as well have a tv show centered around the conversations of two high school girls.

The point of this kind of broadcast is to make a case to the public at large not to reconcile differences of opinion.
*sigh* One would hope that, as citizens in a democracy, people will form opinions based at least partly on solid evidence and logic, and an intelligent discussion would go a long ways to inform people enough so that they can make their own conclusions. However, as you imply, people want material that is banaly entertaining, not interesting.
 
Gruco said:
"Take a spin in the no fact zone. We ignore the evidence and get straight to what I think."

Paraphrase. Whatever. The Colbert Report should be a real show. It looked pretty good.
tds_colb8038_a1.jpg

Word.


I quite enjoyed it once when at a family gathering an aunt of mine scrambled together the names of a couple shows, and talked about what Bill was saying on The O'Reilly Fear Factor. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom