Something has to be done about Bill O'reilly

page: 8
2
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by SpeakerofTruth
 


people over 25 are smart...?
isn't it odd that it's always people over 25 starting wars and genocides?

but you don't address the issue at hand, mainly that o'reilly propagates outright lies, bigotry, and other ignorances.




posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 02:32 PM
link   
I noticed you didn't address either of teh two issues I raised either... Prove to me that he was wrong in regards to his comments about CNN,MSNBC and the New York Time... Prove it!! Fact is, you can't!! Hence, you won't even bother to acknowledge it.

[edit on 6-12-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Lies, bigotry, and other ignorances? Could you be more specific?



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



Do you believe that if people under 25 were in charge, the world would be better off, as they're more responsible?



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


never said it would be better off... however, the younger generations do seem to have more in the way of conflict resolution...
maybe we need to temper the older generations decisions with input from the younger generations


Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Lies, bigotry, and other ignorances? Could you be more specific?


alrighty, i'll give you a laundry list of items which i've already posted several times within this thread...

Here's the list
over 700 items on bill o with unaltered clips of the offenses and transcripts.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 05:28 PM
link   
I see your still not bothering to come to the defense of, I am sure, your beloved CNN,MSNBC and New York Times... That speaks volumes in and of itself.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



That list seems to be somewhat subjective, based upon perspectives. I've yet to hear any bigoted remarks either, if by bigoted you mean speaking about someone's race, gender, origin, religion, creed, etc.. in a prejudiced manner. Now if you mean that because he hasn't kowtowed to any specific group's interests, that's another issue.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by SpeakerofTruth
 


...i hold no love for those institutions (though i do find some of keith olberman's stuff thought provoking and entertaining occasionally)

i prefer something such as NPR, where people get fired for a lack of integrity


Originally posted by BlueRaja
That list seems to be somewhat subjective, based upon perspectives. I've yet to hear any bigoted remarks either, if by bigoted you mean speaking about someone's race, gender, origin, religion, creed, etc.. in a prejudiced manner. Now if you mean that because he hasn't kowtowed to any specific group's interests, that's another issue.


no, he's actually attacked people for their sexual orientation and their lack of religion.
and there was that comment on how he was surprised by black people acting in a normal civil manner and not spewing profanities in a diner...



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I don't suppose you have the quotes/transcripts of those remarks?
Here's a question with regards to the "attacking of folks for their lack of religion"- would it be bigoted of an atheist to attack someone for their not lacking religion, or is that only a one way kind of thing? I've never heard Bill attack homosexuals because of their orientation. He may have attacked something they did, but that's a different issue than why they're the way they are. In any event, are you saying that everyone has to accept the way others live, or else they're bigoted- that there's no room for differences of opinion?



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


yes, i do have transcripts, look in the link to mediamatters that i've posted several times.

ah, atheists don't attack people for their religion, we attack religion. we don't say "he's an idiot for being a christian" we say "christianity is idiotic"

he could talk about atheism all he wants, i wouldn't give 2 hoots, but attacking atheists is slightly different.

anyway, i have repeatedly posted a link to his offenses, please look it over. transcripts and video clips are available there.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


So you're ok if someone says Atheism is idiotic, just not Atheists are idiots?



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by SpeakerofTruth
 


i thought the difference was that o'reilly doesn't have a grasp of reality or common decency and that olbermann does....

seriously, how can you like someone that is so clearly detached from the reality that he's commenting on?


Surely you jest. Olbermann has a grasp of reality? That is a good one. At least conservatives have the intellectual honesty to admit their biases. The left masquerades as being objective, while being just as biased if not far more so.

[edit on 10-12-2007 by BlueRaja]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


So because O'Reilly is against gay marriage, he's a bigot? That would mean that the majority of the Earth's population would be bigoted on that issue.
I'll keep looking for his "racial slurs."



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
So you're ok if someone says Atheism is idiotic, just not Atheists are idiots?


if they have a logical argument behind it, yes. part of being an atheist is being open to reason, logic, and questions. even if that's a question of one's own lack of faith.


Originally posted by BlueRaja
So because O'Reilly is against gay marriage, he's a bigot? That would mean that the majority of the Earth's population would be bigoted on that issue.



no, it's more those instances where he freaks out over little things like a lesbian couple being named prom queen and king or something of that sort.

also, fallacy ad populum. just because it would make the whole world bigoted, doesn't mean they wouldn't be.
it's quite obvious that the world is very bigoted towards homosexuals.



I'll keep looking for his "racial slurs."


where did i use the word "slurs"?

you're misquoting me and creating a strawman so you can be triumphant when you say he hasn't used any.

in fact, i just looked back at all the pages of this thread and you're the only person to use that word and just in this post.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


So you object to Bill O'Reilly because he points out the ridiculous notion of having a same sex King and Queen, at a High School prom? Common sense has to come into play at sometime. Just because there's an agenda to tear at the fabric of traditional thought by special interest groups, doesn't mean that those opposed to it, are in the wrong.

As for your stance on gay marriage- it's a free country, and you're entitled to your opinion. That doesn't mean that those who disagree with you are wrong though. They just share a different opinion, that is at least equally valid. There is no historical precedent for any society to have ever considered marriage to mean anything other than what the common understanding is. Marriage is a very special thing, and I'm against any change of definitions or things that undermine or water it down, merely to advance some social or political agenda.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 09:46 AM
link   
"and there was that comment on how he was surprised by black people acting in a normal civil manner and not spewing profanities in a diner..."

Ok- by slur I meant insult, not the use of a perjorative term.

As for the atheist thing- why is it that atheists aren't satisfied with merely not believing in religion or deities. They feel that when others celebrate their beliefs, that they must take offense, so they try to throw a wet blanket on other's beliefs(i.e. "you can't call that a Christmas tree, you have to call it a holiday tree, because the word Christmas offends me.")
They don't believe in freedom of religion, but rather freedom from religion.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 09:53 AM
link   
marriage is a very special thing huh? Interesting thought considering the rate of divorce between traditional couples. Marriage is no longer sacred, why not allow those who yearn for it to have it. Perhaps some sanctity will be brought back.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Jeff Riff
 


Just because too many marriages end, doesn't change the significance of marriage. I'm opposed to redefining terms for political gains, without regard for biology, sociology, anthropology, etc.... It's about economic benefits and legitimization.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


So you object to Bill O'Reilly because he points out the ridiculous notion of having a same sex King and Queen, at a High School prom? Common sense has to come into play at sometime. Just because there's an agenda to tear at the fabric of traditional thought by special interest groups, doesn't mean that those opposed to it, are in the wrong.


...2 men and 2 women have actually been elected prom queen and king quite often in history. these have more tended to be homophobic jokes at the expense of those elected, but it's happened before in the past. the problem here is that these are actually a couple.

and "traditional thought" is the same argument that was used to support a whole host of horrid institutions.


as for marriage...
i'm sorry, but it's watered down on its own. i think it jumped the shark with drive through weddings.
heterosexual "traditional" christian couples have quite the high divorce rate...so there's really nothing to argue on that point either.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
"and there was that comment on how he was surprised by black people acting in a normal civil manner and not spewing profanities in a diner..."

Ok- by slur I meant insult, not the use of a perjorative term.


ah, i see. ok.



As for the atheist thing- why is it that atheists aren't satisfied with merely not believing in religion or deities.


reference: see middle east.

religion is toxic...



They feel that when others celebrate their beliefs, that they must take offense, so they try to throw a wet blanket on other's beliefs(i.e. "you can't call that a Christmas tree, you have to call it a holiday tree, because the word Christmas offends me.")
They don't believe in freedom of religion, but rather freedom from religion.


um... we don't. companies like walmart and such did that all on their own because they thought it would be good for sales.

sure, we want to get rid of things "in god we trust" and "one nation under god" because they're quite unconstitutional, but we have no problem with holidays being celebrated as they are

odd thing, here in malta (95% catholic) the expressions in maltese translate to "season's greetings" and "happy holidays" in english.

i don't see why you have a problem with saying that, it's actually quite time saving considering you don't have to mention the 3 other holidays (4 if ramadan falls on december) that happen.

and the freedom from other religions is what keeps you free to practice your own.
it's a bit hard to understand when you're in the majority group





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join