Bill Orielly schooled by 16 year old student!

[Rufio]

RIght. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSBNC and 90% of the news print media vs......Fox and talk radio (with their immense audience compared to network news). Got it.

And several of those stations have talk shows with Republican biased pundits. If you want to go into printed media, we could be here all day because there's an insane amount of different newspapers. You haven't even been providing evidence of liberal bias in practice, just some Youtubes of Fox News asking about the personal beliefs of others in newsrooms.

The way you morph 30 years of history like it was comparing last week to this week is ridiculous. At one point, everyone was diplomatic with Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini. Foreign policy doesnt include a crystal ball to know exactly what is going to happen in the future. You can go down throughout history and find the exact same types of situations on both sides. Its irrelevant to me.

The US was allied with Saddam until the Kuwait invasion. In fact, a US embassador stated while Saddam was on the Kuwait border than the US had no interest in Saddam. The US was allied with Saddam WHILE he was massacaring his people and were providing him with weapons.

The way you state "party line" sounds like tis written in stone. IT changed dramatically for both sides in the last 10 years...If you looked at JFK now, he would be considered a conservative. Its also irrelevant to me.

JFK did the exact same things that are done now. He just tried to paint Cuba as the great threat instead. We don't have a rapidly changing party structure in terms of foreign policy. Both Democrats and Republicans are primarily interested in the US remaining the #1 power in the world and enforcing that through whatever means. There are so many examples to illustrate this I could be here all day reciting them.

I wouldn't call those people who express their view fairly eloquanly "America haters". I would say they lean left and probably liberal. There is a different between what you state and calling Bush Hitler and the soldiers baby killers.

That's retarded. Placing equal scrutiny on US leaders as you do on foreign leaders is somehow leaning left? That would imply that being nationalistic and overly trusting of your own leaders is a centrist view.

You are the one associating "far left" with "American haters". I don't think I've said that once. Seems to be more of an insult to you than me.

Actually I was talking about how others like O Reilly use the terms interchangibly.

Find it and I will explain it but I'm sure you had such a thorough understanding of my point with the "emoticon". Here's one

... Whatever.

Fact. You state there is no liberal bias then freely admit you don't even watch the news often. Not baseless at all and I certinaly don't see the insult.

I said there is a mixed bias between Democrats and Republican sources THROUGHOUT ALL MEDIA, not just TV news. And I stated that nationalistic bias and sensationalism are the only universal biases I've seen. Which I can and have provided examples for.

...wihch leaves you in a great position to see this issue clearly

I've seen enough to see the few times the entire TV media unites, like with Chavez, Churchill, Benoit, etc. I would consider a bias that united all of the TV media stronger than other scattered biases based mostly on the personal opinions of those in the newsroom.

I forgot....Bill O'Reilly has to be perfect to defend him.


Where in the definition of the word "approval" does it state he is right all the time? When you find it, let me know.

My point was that one of your main complaints about "liberals" is always their hypocrisy when you approve of a guy who does the same thing. Aside from that, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who bullies their guests and lies about their positions as much as Bill. Nancy Grace is the only one I can think of.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

And several of those stations have talk shows with Republican biased pundits. If you want to go into printed media, we could be here all day because there's an insane amount of different newspapers. You haven't even been providing evidence of liberal bias in practice, just some Youtubes of Fox News asking about the personal beliefs of others in newsrooms.

Right....when all else fails, deny, deny deny. Can you tell me what pundits work for NBC, ABC and CBS? Please?

Even the news media themselves admit it but that won't please you. The Fox News clips were of NBC and ABC affiliates. I suggest you watch them. Actually don't, you won't believe what fits into your "world view" perspective anyway.

The US was allied with Saddam until the Kuwait invasion. In fact, a US embassador stated while Saddam was on the Kuwait border than the US had no interest in Saddam. The US was allied with Saddam WHILE he was massacaring his people and were providing him with weapons.

And your point besides the basic history lesson? Its irrelevant to me. What wrongs we commit in the past has no bearing on my judgement in the present unless similar situations occur.....but I guess you need to blame someone!

JFK did the exact same things that are done now. He just tried to paint Cuba as the great threat instead. We don't have a rapidly changing party structure in terms of foreign policy. Both Democrats and Republicans are primarily interested in the US remaining the #1 power in the world and enforcing that through whatever means. There are so many examples to illustrate this I could be here all day reciting them.

Actually he painted them as a surrogate for the Soviet Union.

Would I care when you illustrate another point I could care less about? Nope.

That's retarded. Placing equal scrutiny on US leaders as you do on foreign leaders is somehow leaning left? That would imply that being nationalistic and overly trusting of your own leaders is a centrist view.

Did I say that? Did I even mention scrutiny? Nope. I said the viewpoint was a "leaning left" or "liberal" viewpoint. Here is a newsflash for you...you will have more Bush haters and anti-war faction on the left than on the right. Its a simple logic. Now if you want to argue semantics because it doesnt fit into your "world view" go ahead. I simply don't care.

Actually I was talking about how others like O Reilly use the terms interchangibly.

Thats because its a thin line.

... Whatever.

Intelligent response.

I said there is a mixed bias between Democrats and Republican sources THROUGHOUT ALL MEDIA, not just TV news. And I stated that nationalistic bias and sensationalism are the only universal biases I've seen. Which I can and have provided examples for.

You have provided nothing and stating there are mixed biases in all media is really a revolution to us all. Nobody knew THAT! The point was the NEWS....something you still don't get.

Stating that the national news has a nationalistic bias to OUR nation is both obvious and "retarded". Of course its biased to our nation...its reporting, for the most part, is about OUR NATION. I know its a complex concept for you to grasp!

I've seen enough to see the few times the entire TV media unites, like with Chavez, Churchill, Benoit, etc. I would consider a bias that united all of the TV media stronger than other scattered biases based mostly on the personal opinions of those in the newsroom.

:blink:

My point was that one of your main complaints about "liberals" is always their hypocrisy when you approve of a guy who does the same thing. Aside from that, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who bullies their guests and lies about their positions as much as Bill. Nancy Grace is the only one I can think of.

Does what? Sue someone? You don't make any sense. You go on so many tangents that nobody understands a thing you're talking about. So now I can't call liberals hypocrites because I believe in many of the viewpoints O'Reilly has? Wow.....I got it. I'm sure O'Reilly has been hypocrtical at some point his life...that doesnt change what I believe in and what I agree with him on. Care to try another angle on that one?


:fool2: