Bill O'Reilly causes Joy and Whoopi to walk off set of "The View"

reply to post by buster2010


Hey everybody

I reckon that the us constitution didnt state that we should roll over on our backs and let other foreign countries take over.

Thought about posting this but didn't think The View was ATS worthy. I guess I was wrong. It's a bunch of dingbats sitting with a dingbat discussing a Mosque.

Why do I give a damn what ANY of those tools think?

reply to post by DaWhiz


Hey everybody,
They have no right to put their mosk anywhere near the 9/11 site.

reply to post by SeventhSeal


I starred your post because I did lol at it. I do think the reason this thread got so much attention despite not being ATS worthy is that most of us know the dingbats by reputation even if we wish we didn't. It's hard to pass up the opportunity to take a few jabs at them.

reply to post by christian39


It is a religious community center, my friend. And the good ol' US constitution begs to differ with your opinion.

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
But, how could he have known what they were trying to ask, he did not permit them to finish their thoughts, nor was he even listening.

Neither were they. Everyone was trying to talk over everyone else, none of them were listening, and all of them thought they knew what the others meant before letting them finish their thought.

You might be right Jenna, but during the Cross talk, and repeated attempts, it did seem to me that Barbara and Whoopi were attempting to ask the same line of questioning in an attempt to isolate in wording what exactly Mr. O'Reilly's position was on a specific issue. And not all of them thought they knew what the others meant before letting them finish their thought, Joy were all stifled, silenced, detered, deflected, and redirected by Bill when he started to dominate the conversation.

Starting at around 16 seconds we can see and hear:
Barbara was not permitted to finish her thought.
Whoopi was not permitted to finish her thought.
Joy was not permitted to finish her thought.

Bill was heard, and Bill was not only permitted to finish his thought, but also repeated follow up thoughts as well until Whoopi asked her (in my opinion) multi-layered compounded sentence of a question.

When Barbara is speaking around the 16 second mark (during the crosstalk) I thought I heard her begin to say:
"What do you think about the discussion that.." Which is where Bill cuts her of with saying: "No no no no no no".

I think (besides some of the views being exchanged) this is where the conversation began to decline. However, maybe this is how the show is formatted. Admittingly, I do not watch The View, and have only seen maybe 4 or 5 episodes of it. I do not like people talking over one another, I prefer open dialogue and people conducting themselves in a mature fashion while sharing and exchanging ideas, not yelling at eachother.

Having watched the clip of what all happened and having seen both Bill O'Reilly and the view, I feel I am compent to make a few statements:
For those who feel that Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck should be off the air, then that is a dangerous road to travel down. For far too long, people tend to complain about programs and even in our recent past, the government has thought as you do, and I can remember when this government, the light and beacon to the rest of the world for what freedom really means and to have that, actively sought to silence its critics. Those were the wrong actions then as it is now. Questions arise as to why do 3 news commentators on one tv network, why do they irritate and scare those who hold power in this country. Too often comments come to light, like a candle in the darkness, that shows this point and many others as to what all is going on, and we should support these commentators and others like them for exercising the very freedoms that we hold so dear, to include the freedom of speech.
Now days commentators go by ratings, including those on the radio, to where those with the highest ratings, have the big contracts. Those who tend to attract more attention, get more air time, this is true, as it means their employers are happy with their performance. Bill O'Reilly is no exception, and has been in the business for a long time, to include reporting the news. His program, if you do not agree with it, is not to report the news stories of the day, but rather to comment on such, and there are times, he asks the questions that no one would like to answer, often bringing a bit of common sense to the forefront of the issues. Every commentator that you can think of, has done that, or else you would not be thinking and stating how bad or good they are.
I believe the fault lies with the produces of the View. They should have known that by having Bill O'Reilly on the show would have been a powder keg just waiting for a match to set it off. Bill has a strong opinion, has the aids to the research and then does the comments. The hosts of the view, did not research this out, nor did they think that he was going to change his point of view or stance, just for comming on their show. This was a rating game, and they wanted him to boost their ratings.
If anything, the reaction that Whoopi and Joy showed while walking off stage, tended to show that they were neither ready for his comments, and showed a bit of unproffessionalism on their part. The only one who showed true proffessionalism was Barbra Walters, who remained calm.

reply to post by christian39


Is 4-Chan a little slow tonight?

Originally posted by rabzdguy
How did the guy end up getting his own show? Americans cant wake up when you got backwards people like this guy.

In face of the evidence that can be only characterized as overwhelming, no, they can't.

Something just happens to you over the years. I used to be a formidable athlete years ago, now I busted my knee just walking in midtown Manhattan (sadly). Same happened to America. The moment that guy landed a job, it became plain clear to me. He should be washing dishes in the back of an Irish pub.

Here's the problem that right wingers can't get through their thick skulls about this issue. O'Reilly can't seem to comprehend this either.

Islam did not attack us on 9/11, it didn't insane people DID.

Take the religion out of the equation and you understand that it's the fault of INSANE people, people who don't respect the lives of others, people who are so indoctrinated in their own hate that they cannot fathom anyone else thinking or believing or acting in any other way but the way THEY want.

That's what O'Reilly does not understand, if you take the religious component out of the equation (because it's irrelevant anyway) you will come to understand that the people involved are seriously demented homicidal idiots. If they didn't have Islam to base their hatred on, they would have chosen some other reason to do it. It just doesn't matter. Hell, they could have just as easily based their reason on the catcher in the rye.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck; all have no business being on TV.

Sean Hannity is a real piece of work, isn't he

Enjoy Sean Hannity's example of "Fair and Balanced":



reply to post by gncnew

Originally posted by the inept gncnew
ROFLCOPTER ROFLCOPTER

You get two for that ridiculousness.

So you now say that hannity is venomous because of a tinfoil hat conspiricy youtube video...

I think Hannity is venomous because of the information my senses and experiences have garnered.

Check - meet Mate...

Really?


Free speech does not include the right to intentionally decieve the public; but Fox News does just that every day.

PLEASE Do not let their narrative define for you what you believe.

Pleasantries,
ET

Originally posted by buddhasystem
He should be washing dishes in the back of an Irish pub.

I could not disagree with you more buddhasystem. He should be picking up rat droppings from the sewers, imo.

Originally posted by whatukno
Here's the problem that right wingers can't get through their thick skulls about this issue.

That was all I read, then I gave you a star for that post

Take the religion out of the equation and you understand that it's the fault of INSANE people, people who don't respect the lives of others, people who are so indoctrinated in their own hate that they cannot fathom anyone else thinking or believing or acting in any other way but the way THEY want.

Even if we do leave religion in the equation, let us at least consider that these individuals who allegedly (innocent until proven guilty in a court of law) carried out these attacks where taking their own religion out of context, or misinterpretting the intentions of the words of the Koran/Quran, and what they all mean when held in context with eachother simultaneously.

That's what O'Reilly does not understand, if you take the religious component out of the equation (because it's irrelevant anyway) you will come to understand that the people involved are seriously demented homicidal idiots. If they didn't have Islam to base their hatred on, they would have chosen some other reason to do it. It just doesn't matter. Hell, they could have just as easily based their reason on the catcher in the rye.

Do I regret giving you a star for that post? Nope, I sure don't.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us whatukno,
ET

reply to post by jsmappy


Bill Orielly is a fool, why doesn't he go pick on a rape victim like he seems to do every time I hear about the loser.

Wow. What about all the American soldiers who have murdered innocent civillians, when you count it up the civillian death toll is 10,000 times the death toll of your 9/11 victims and soliders combined.

I GUESS THAT MAKES AMERICA AN EXTREMIST NATION.

reply to post by SpectreDC


post by Esoteric Teacher

This partially justifies something that I take into consideration when interpretting what Bill O'Reilly actually means.

Hope this helps,
ET

reply to post by Esoteric Teacher


where he made his mistake, and even admits as much on the view, is not being specific enough. he should've differentiated, but was refusing to disengage the muslim from the muslim extremist, and the ladies were insisting that he did.

reply to post by 1xion325alpha


stereotype much? since when is bill o'reilly the spokesman for the entire nation? he's offering his opinion, which he's entitled to. i'm getting really tired of all the freakin' stereotypes. next person that insinuates or accuses me of being crap that i'm not, just because of my geographical location is gonna earn some serious meditation from me.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
You might be right Jenna, but during the Cross talk, and repeated attempts, it did seem to me that Barbara and Whoopi were attempting to ask the same line of questioning in an attempt to isolate in wording what exactly Mr. O'Reilly's position was on a specific issue.

They were attempting to interrupt him and were yelling over him. He was doing the same thing, he just didn't stop talking when they did it to him. Then they walked off in a huff when he stopped talking instead of asking their question. Barbara was the only one who even attempted to listen to his side. Whoopi did so much yelling I don't have a clue what she was attempting to say because I just tuned her out. When people yell, I stop paying attention. It's a character flaw I have.

Honestly it looked to me like her and Joy were looking for something offensive to come out of his mouth just because they don't agree with him on anything when it comes to politics and they found what they were looking for. When he said "Muslims killed us..." I didn't automatically jump to "O'Reilly thinks all Muslims attacked us on 9/11", I went to the logical conclusion that he was commenting on the fact that the hijackers happened to be Muslim. If someone were to say "Germans were responsible for the Holocaust." Would you think they meant every single person who was a citizen of Germany at the time was involved? Or would you understand that they were referring to those Germans who actually did participate in the deaths of millions of innocent people? Common sense would tell you it was the latter, but if you're looking to be offended you'd assume it was the former.

Originally posted by Jenna
When he said "Muslims killed us..." I didn't automatically jump to "O'Reilly thinks all Muslims attacked us on 9/11", I went to the logical conclusion that he was commenting on the fact that the hijackers happened to be Muslim.

I went with the same conclusion/assumption, but when confronted and asked to differentiate, and to clarify his postion, to draw a verbal distinction between the actions of a few dozen (allegedly) acting under the guise of the Muslim banner, and just using the word "Muslims" without an adjective or descriptive, he would not do it, rather he was deflective and his statements & rhetorical questions appeared to me to be evasive and deliberately ambiguous.

If someone were to say "Germans were responsible for the Holocaust." Would you think they meant every single person who was a citizen of Germany at the time was involved? Or would you understand that they were referring to those Germans who actually did participate in the deaths of millions of innocent people? Common sense would tell you it was the latter, but if you're looking to be offended you'd assume it was the former.

I'm not entirely sure this is a fair analogy. There is a distinct difference. Germany is a country. Islam is not. But, no, I would not think everyone in Germany was guilty of being involved, just the ones who funded the cause by paying taxes, providing goods and services, and passively and/or actively participated knowingly and/or unknowingly with the extermination and experimentation on other people. People should be obligated or have some measure of responsibility to ask for and inquire about factual and actionable intel, and receive valid truthful information concerning what their nation is doing with their money and their taxes. People should have the right to know what is being done in their name in foreign lands and against other people in their homes, and on their properties, in my opinion.

I only quoted a small portion of your post, because I wanted to share and clarify some thoughts I entertain about this subject matter, but not neccessarily subscribe to. I thought your post was eloquently stated and well thought out, I just wanted to address some of my thoughts concerning your questions.

Thanks for sharing,
ET