Proof:
Printable View
Proof:
America is so alien to the West. Seriously, a news channel in which the interviewer asks totally biased and loaded questions whilst they show pretty graphics of cruxifixes?? That just doesn't happen over here.
I can't be bothered to deal with that guy's ridiculous arguments... Dawkins annoys me sometimes but it was funny watching his exasperated expression as the guy said various utterly stupid things.
I'd like to know why Dawkins would bother with O'Reilly again. I swear he pulled a similar stunt with The God Delusion a few years ago.
No O'Reilly thread is complete without this:
Settle down, Bill.
We're all friends here. :chuckle:
I used to watch O'Reilly during my "neocon stage" about six years ago. I think he was partially to blame for me moving toward the center.
Hahaha, I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
People like him and Glen Beck have no business being on TV.
I stopped watching anything on fox news, when I caught them lying about Ron Paul's results in the republican primary election. I mean, flat out lied. In many of the state election they said he came in last place, or did really poorly when it wasn't true. They often reported him being in 4th, when he was in first, second or third. It didn't matter what place he was really in, they always said he was last. The reports showed up on the screen, admitting he was in second place in a lot of them, and they said he was in 4th. If they are going to lie to my face, while the real results scroll across the bottom of the screen, proving that they are lying, then I am not going to watch.
Every poll I ever looked at showed Ron Paul getting his ass spanked in the DFL position. I think your other source lied. At this point, I wish Ron Paul had won, but he didn't have a chance. He gave up too soon. When he didn't get the Republican nomination, he should have run as an Independent. A lot of people on party edges and in the middle would have voted for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Bill O'Reilly is a smart cookie and an excellent debater, but he has rage problems and can't seem to refrain from interrupting for very long. Also, he is intellectually dishonest on social issues. His views on pot legalization and separation of church and state are straight up retarded.
Actually Ron Paul didn't do to bad considering. He constantly got about third place, but third place doesn't really cut it. Third place is pretty good out of the starting 10 or so. So he beat out 7 other people, which is far better than the media claimed.
However, that isn't what I am talking about. Fox news knowingly reported false news, as did CNN(which is why I don't watch them either). I know this for a fact, because its based on their OWN SOURCES! I remember in my state, Ron Paul was in second and here is what happen. Fox news reported him being in 4th place. Then they would show the numbers, the numbers showed Ron Paul was in second. Then they would report again, naming the person who was in 1st, 2nd and third, and didn't even mention Ron Pauls name. Mean while, at the bottom of the screen they had the rolling side bar which listed the results, and that rolling side bar said Ron Paul was in 2nd place.
In other words, they made a bald face lie, when they claimed he was in 4th, and also when they refused to report him and claimed someone else was in 2nd and 3rd, when they were actually 3rd and 4th. This is based on their own information.
And besides out right lying to the people, they also did as much as possible to hide the results. Such as whenever they had a pie chart up on the screen of the result, that constantly had 20-30 percent of the pie chart greyed out, saying "other". When other was Ron Paul alone. Some times when he was in second place, it was greyed out as other, while they listed down to the 5th place person.
From what I've seen, he's only a good debater because of his negative attributes. Such as not allowing his opponent to speak, ignoring his opponent's arguments and yet still claiming to be correct, speaking loudly, and using disinformation to make his point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
He does that a lot, but he also retorts well at times. He went to Harvard, so he is not a moron. He just has personality issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Eagle
I completely agree. Bill is an arrogant prick.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Eagle
Check this out...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJrY3yCnlSg
That is great. I guess the only way to deal with someone like that, is to yell back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
Quote:
There are more believers then non believers and that should be presented
W...O...W... that pretty much sums up his intelligence.
The guy throws out science like it's the Devil. So because we don't know the beginning, follow Jesus because to even this day many believe in his teachings...i may not be the brightest bulb in the bunch, but i think even i can take on Bill and win. Anyone who throws out science should go live under a rock for the rest of their lives. Science makes life easier for people, and cures people, where as religion may have some kind words and how to live a life a good way, you make your own life. While you do not base your life around science, you find a medium and how to live a well rounded life as best as you can, but this Bill guy is just another weirdo. While Dawkins may annoy me, it's probably his voice and the way he seems to think everyone who does not follow his science but wanna believe in something else is delusional, but he's right about something. He's right about the teaching kids about evolution in science class.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Now THAT is entertainment!:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Just no. :lQuote:
Bill O'Reilly is a smart cookie and an excellent debater
Everything I've seen suggests his debating technique (why is he even debating? He's an impartial news reporter) consists of shouting BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA whilst the other person speaks. Whilst I'm sure that style appeals to many, I'd hope that most people can see straight through it.
He's not a debater. He's a hypocrite with a big mouth and a loud voice.
More priceless O'Reilly being schooled:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beJ9y...BFF67&index=20
That's essentially it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
O'Reilly is a shining example of the concept of "it's not what you say, it's how you say it." He is a king of swagger. So many people get caught up on how confidently he says something, that it doesn't matter that he's making little to no point, while he's talking. I charge anybody to actually pay attention to some of the things he says, when he's getting into a heated debate. Not just take in his demeanor. He will always have the last word (even when he says he's giving it to his guest, he always injects two more cents before ending the segment). And even when he doesn't have an actual point to make - or one that's not easily refutable - he says it with such professional swagger that it's almost hard not to say "that man knows what the fuck he's talking about."
Sean Hannity does the same thing. They are spin doctors. Yes, they are good at it, but it is an empty debate tactic. It is not rational, substantial, debate.
That's essentially it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
O'Reilly is a shining example of "it's not what you say, it's how you say it." He is a king of swagger. So many people get caught up on how confidently he says something, that it doesn't matter that he's making little to no point, while he's talking. I charge anybody to actually pay attention to some of the things he says, when he's getting into a heated debate. Not just take in his demeanor. He will always have the last word (even when he says he's giving it to his guest, he always injects two more cents before ending the segment). And even when he doesn't have an actual point to make - or one that's not easily refutable - he says it with such professional swagger that it's almost hard not to say "that man knows what the fuck he's talking about."
Sean Hannity does the same thing, as does Glenn Beck. They are spin doctors. Yes, they are good at it, but it is an empty debate tactic. It is not rational, substantial, debate.
O'Reilly does do the things y'all are talking about, but not always. He does at times show good debate skills. Like I said, he has personality issues but is not stupid. Sean Hannity is not that great of a debater, but Glenn Beck is excellent at it. All three are really good showmen, but that does not mean Beck and O'Reilly don't know how to debate when they really try to.
I would like to see proof of this statement. Also, being a good debater doesn't mean they don't spread misinformation, it just means more members of the audience believe their misinformation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
You'll just need to watch his show for proof. Most of the videos of him on YouTube are there because he said something ridiculous or started yelling or something. Is that what you are going on? I have never seen him show good debate skills while spreading misinformation. He just makes asinine comments to do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Eagle
Yes, it's surreal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
There is an important distinction between news reporting and commentary. Bill O'Reilly is a commentator, not a reporter. His show is admittedly all about opinions. Glenn Beck's and Sean Hannity's shows are also. Many other shows just report the news.
I realize that, still it's very weird to see him openly talking about teaching creationism/ID in science class as if the concept wasn't completely ridiculous. And then they throw in pictures of Jesus along the debate. :shock:Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind