The Blue Site: The Week

The Week

Anyone heard of a magazine/newspaper called THE WEEK? I started getting it (I got one issue so far) last week. I'm not positive, but from reading it, I think it's just a collection of various stories with the viewpoints of various other magazines and newspapers. It's not very big, and there aren't tons of ads in it. I was reading it earlier, and it's interesting. Thought I would share.

I also started getting RISING TIDE, the magazine for the republican national committee. 'mm' 'tt' 'ee'...which has a lot of stories on various republican based initiatives and info. on Bush's tax plan and stuff like that.

Thanks to everyone who has sent e mails and signed the tagboard...those who have been supportive. I'm not having a very good time the past few weeks (poor me, I know), and I appreciate all the kind words and encouragement. I hope things go the way I want them to eventually, but if they don't...well, let's not think about that- too scary. I'm trying to be calm and stuff, so that's good. Wish me luck :) I've been watching my tapes of Bob and Margaret (a cartoon that used to air on comedy central and now on Showtime Women) and Jimmy Neutron...Sheen can lift my spirits a bit. Not tons, but a bit, so it helps. Call me weird. "Foldinggg and hannngginnnggg...folding and hannngginnngg" Only fans of Jimmy Neutron would have any idea what I was just singing...

Anyone see that movie THE ENDLESS SUMMER 2? I saw it on Encore a few weeks ago...I have seen it a number of times. It's a good movie, if only for the atmosphere it creates. I have never surfed, and since I'm deathly afraid of water that I can't see the bottom of, I probably never will...but, it's a cool movie either way. I wanted to go see BEND IT LIKE BECKHAM, but it's not playing here anymore...that sucks. I want to see OLD SCHOOL again. That was funny.

Last night on THE FACTOR, Bill called some guy a vicious son-of-a-bitch. The guy deserved it tho for lying and then calling Bill names. I just thought it was laugh-out-loud funny. I actually had a dream near 5:45 this morning (right before I woke up), and I had Bill as a teacher (don't ask me), and he had THE FACTOR too...I asked him about the show last night, and I mentioned how I could tell he was semi-pissed up till the end of the show...which was probably true, because he kept messing up what he was saying at the end. He started giving off the website address again when he meant to say the e mail address, he messed up the website address before that...he said he was "delirious," I understand...he's clearly a good guy and the witch hunters are out and about. Just like with Bennett- who did NOTHING wrong whatsoever...yet, nice guys get that sort of thing. I read a story where FAIR (fairness-lol- and accuracy-lol again- in reporting) claimed Bill was bias because he talked too much about Jesse Jackson. Odd...maybe he talks a lot about him because he's a thugish race baiting crook who hides behind his non-profit tax status to steal millions? Or because Bill has too many stories on Hillary Clinton...could it be not bias, but maybe that she's one of the most corrupt women in this country? Or that Bill attacked the Clinton administration...hmmm, odd again, maybe it's because Clinton was one of the most corrupt presidents we've ever had...a man who lied to us on national televsion...whose wife spent hundreds of millions in travel expenses and the taxpayers paid for her senate campaign, tho she has never held any other public office in her life? Could it be that he goes after the bad guys 'cause they do bad things...and not because of some right-wing bias? Gasp! No way!

I'm gonna go listen to this CAR TALK CD I got...it's all about calls from people who talk about couples and cars. Those guys are funny. I used to have a friend who solved their puzzles a couple times with me. I miss it :( Good day to everyone...:)

Posted by Josh at May 8, 2003 05:25 PM

"actually, im not really in the mood to argue with someone who admits he doesnt watch the show, when i watch bill everynight...and i know for a fact everything you mention is just baseless. of course youll find sites out there that claim hes lied and has bad research, etc...you accept it all."

- I never admitted I "don't watch the show". You just made that up. May I ask why?

"lol. you havent proven that millions of americans ARENT furious with the canadian govt. he NEVER gave out the number millions as solid fact...its called a figure of speech. if youre gonna argue that hes wrong because he used a figure of speech, you should probably just shut up to begin with, because you have no argument to start out with. golly, he used a figure of speech so hes a liar. thats hilarious and stupid all at the same time."

1. I never said he was "wrong" about anything. You've made that up too. May I ask why?

2. I never used that example to call him a "liar". That's the third thing you've made up. Again, why?

3. What I said was, deciding how "millions of americans" feel to support an argument without backing the claim up is not journalism. For all I know, millions of americans are pissed, but O'Reilly used this "figure of speech" to illustrate that americans are pissed at Canadian government. For real journalists, the burden of proof lies with the person who makes the claim.

"so if youre a registered republican (hes not) youre biased? if im not mistaken those records are not public record to begin with...so dont claim hes a repub."

- That stuff about him being a republican and his affliliation with the right wing has more to do with your claim of him having no "left or right bias". I mean, his books are put in "conservative authors sections" he writes for a website that ONLY POSTS coservative authors, he was a registered conservative until a newspaper ran a story on his political ties (then he magically saw the light and registered as a independant) ,and he attends political functions that are exclusive to conservatives. Saying he has no right or left bias is like saying George Bush has no right bias or Noam Chomsky has no left bias.

- Obviously you're wrong about those records not being public, otherwise the Washington Post wouldn't have been able to report his registration status.

"you cannot deny that. hes against the death penalty. not very republican huh? oh wait...thats just ONE thing, right? LOWDOWN: one thing doesnt prove anything!! wahhh!!"

- If I say someone's a racist, then I back the claim up by proving they burn crosses, are a member of the KKK, and shout racial slurs and various chinese and african american people, are you gonna refute my argument by saying, "Yes, but they never bother spanish people, so they're not really racist".

- The fact is, O'Reilly supports every conservative issue they have except for the death penalty and global warming. That's 2, count em 2! There's still like 25 other issues left. If you really believe that supporting 2 issues that aren't conservative makes you neither "left or right", then there's nothing left to say.

"and he simply has no reason to lie"

- Now I'm upset. What's wrong with you? You've said this twice and I ALREADY GAVE A MOTIVE. Are you literate? Here it is AGAIN:
"So you can't understand why he would possibly lie about his right wing affiliation? Maybe so people like you could defend him as "neither left or right" and bring an element of desperately needed credibility to his weekly dose of conservative, sensationalistic propaganda?? Hmmm? Just maybe?"

- If you disagree, then just disagree and back your opinion up. It says a lot about the strength of your argument when you have to completely ignore my posts to make a point.

"so, i guess by your definition, every republican and democrat who attend their respective parties events are also biased too, correct? no?"

1. He didn't just attend. He GAVE A SPEECH.

2. That said, a more accurate response would be:

"so, i guess by your definition, every republican and democrat who respective parties events are also biased too"

- And my answer is yes. Would you want Al Gore giving the news? Don't you think there's a coflict of interest there?

"bill writes for worldnet daily...i guess everyone who writes for them MUST be republican too. if they claim theyre not, theyre also lying in accordance with your argument."

- I don't know, does world net daily accept writers who aren't republican? The example I gave didn't. Townhall accept only entries from people with conservative views. I imagine the same could be said for the "conservative book club".

"et the person who runs that IS NO WAY BIASED, huh? never! bill is, but not that guy! you keep bringing up the argument of bill saying "millions" of americans, when you know very well he didnt mean it as any solid factual number...and thats part of your "proof" that he "lies"? come on!"

...best...paragraph...ever
This one is my favorite. Here we go:

1. This person who runs it is biased. I never said he wasn't. I think Hoodlum even admitted he was already. See, this person is not a journalist, nor does he claim to be. Bill is biased and so his this guy. But unlike Bill, he doesn't claim to be a journalist.

2. "Part of my proof that he lies"? When did I say that was proof that he lies? Why are you making things up?

3. If you want lies, I'll give you lies.
check out http://www.fair.org/extra/0205/oh_really.html

.. this isn't an "angelfire" page. This is a petty detailed account of Bill lying his ass off by an official media watchdog organization. So THIS is my proof of his lies.

Another link for lisa ho can't understand why "everybody" says Fox News is biased:
http://www.mikehersh.com/article_102.shtml
Just scroll to the bottom.

Josh, I have to ask again. Why have you avoided the subject of that mexican girl. Don't tell me you didn't feel like arguing, because if that were true you wouldn't of posted all that stuff abut me accusing Bill of being a liar.

Josh, what was with all the words you put in my mouth? You made like 4 things up.

You've ignored most of my questions/points and have began making things up about what I said. The Bill O'Reilly is a journalist argument isn't in good shape is it?

Posted by: Lowdown at May 15, 2003 01:09 PM

"so there could very easily be millions who are pissed at canada. im one...lisa i bet is two...lets keep counting..."

On a side note, regarding that comment, are you upset with Canada because our government made it's democratic choice not to join the war in Iraq? (something I don't agree with, but I have to live with it)....since when did you go from pro democratic to pro communist?

Posted by: HOODLUMinc at May 14, 2003 06:21 PM

"lol. you havent proven that millions of americans ARENT furious with the canadian govt."

But you see, the argument was based on the fact that he pulls numbers out of his ass. A good "reporter" as you call him doesn't use "figures of speech" when they "report" (I cant say that word associated with Bill and not laugh)

"of course youll find sites out there that claim hes lied and has bad research, etc...you accept it all."

You have still yet to prove any of it wrong. You are obviously in denial about the whole thing, brushing it off Orielly style....without using any form of proof or fact to refute our points or back yours.

But anyway....until I start seeing some facts tossed our way instead of the usual "thats wrong" with no back-up, im just going to agree to disagree and stop posting in this comment thread.....it's getting pointless.

Posted by: HOODLUMinc at May 14, 2003 06:17 PM

also-
you say:
================
Once again, you're arguing about something completely different then the issue at hand. There is absolutley nothing wrong with being a republican. Unless, of course, you and you're defenders claim you're "AN UN-BIASED JOURNALIST". O'Reilly claimed he was an independant. And that was a lie. I offered evidence showing he was in fact a republican when he was claiming otherwise. You have yet to refute that. You also said he was neither right or left, and I pointed out he writes for prominent right wing websites, and attends exlusive right wing engagements. Instead of refuting the evidence that was offered, you instead offered me this fragmented sentence... "its silly to think he would even have a reason to lie about it"
================
so if youre a registered republican (hes not) youre biased? if im not mistaken those records are not public record to begin with...so dont claim hes a repub. im registered as a democrat, but only because i havent changed anything in years...so i cant claim that im not a democrat, huh? well, im not. bills views are consistently on both sides. you cannot deny that. hes against the death penalty. not very republican huh? oh wait...thats just ONE thing, right? LOWDOWN: one thing doesnt prove anything!! wahhh!!

hes been invited to so called "right wing" functions...gosh, that must also mean that hes biased too, huh? so, i guess by your definition, every republican and democrat who attend their respective parties events are also biased too, correct? no? didnt think so...

bill writes for worldnet daily...i guess everyone who writes for them MUST be republican too. if they claim theyre not, theyre also lying in accordance with your argument.

what is a "republican"? bill has said he is a registered independent, you cannot prove otherwise...many of his views arent in line with the bulk of the republican party...and he simply has no reason to lie. believe it or not, belonging to either party doesnt make you biased at all. talk to john mccain about that, and come back when he laughs in your face...

face it...there is no "proof" that hes republican or biased...you claim hes republican because he attends certain events...and that hes biased because he attends those events and so he MUST BE a republican. thats pure insanity. the sites you guys list...come on...oreilly sucks? wow. i bet the person who runs that IS NO WAY BIASED, huh? never! bill is, but not that guy! you keep bringing up the argument of bill saying "millions" of americans, when you know very well he didnt mean it as any solid factual number...and thats part of your "proof" that he "lies"? come on! get over it. lets see some more oreilly sucks sites...we wanna see all this unbiased info on how bill is so biased himself. please. i need a laugh.

finally...as for my sentence "fragment," please go back to high school and learn what a sentence fragment is.

Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at May 14, 2003 11:55 AM

actually, im not really in the mood to argue with someone who admits he doesnt watch the show, when i watch bill everynight...and i know for a fact everything you mention is just baseless. of course youll find sites out there that claim hes lied and has bad research, etc...you accept it all.

your arguments are completely silly- for example this one-
--------
"For instance, that comment about "millions of americans" angered with the Canadian government? How do you explain all those examples?"
--------
lol. you havent proven that millions of americans ARENT furious with the canadian govt. he NEVER gave out the number millions as solid fact...its called a figure of speech. if youre gonna argue that hes wrong because he used a figure of speech, you should probably just shut up to begin with, because you have no argument to start out with. golly, he used a figure of speech so hes a liar. thats hilarious and stupid all at the same time.

then again, there are 300 million + people in the U.S., so there could very easily be millions who are pissed at canada. im one...lisa i bet is two...lets keep counting...get real. bill said millions when in reality there are only probably 500 thousand. see??! hes a liar! i told ya i told ya!i told ya! lol

Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at May 14, 2003 11:42 AM

"Nice. I love having my intelligence insulted by a couple of guys who half the time can't even spell O'Reilly correctly. Oh, but we watch the show. Don't we boys?"

- 1. If you don't like having your intelligence insulted, then why don't you explain how you accused me of not supporting my arguments when I clearly did. This was the post I responded too:

"we get this a lot when it comes to fox news. "it's biased". oh really? toward what? why? what did you watch? what did they say? come on!"

I responded by providing you with detailed evidence suggesting Fox was in fact biased. Then you responded by saying "This is completely ridiculous. I don't know where you come from, but here, when you accuse someone of something (even as small as saying "you're biased") it's YOUR job to prove they're guilty, not their job to prove they're innocent. I just brought it up because it happens all the time. Everyone is so sure FOX is biased, but not one really seems to know why..."

Obviously I know why. Obviously the news sources I provided you with know why. So just what the hell were you talking about? Please explain to me why you would give me that response after I offered proof of both fox news' bias and Bill's. If you can't do that, then don't expect anyone reading your posts to respect your intelligence.

- 2. Is your argument so weak that you have to attack grammar and typos? Since apparently mispelling the man's name is undeniable proof that I don't "watch the show", I'll be more careful in the future.

"I then went on to tell about how Bill's show does have both sides of the story, and Bill does listen to both sides"

I assume you were talking about this:

"o anyway, just this last week, bill started out discussing a topic with someone, him taking one side, the guest taking the other, and at the end bill had changed his mind. the guest CHANGED HIS MIND."

Hey good for you. You've sited ONE example of Bill debating someone who changed his mind. Apparently that's enough to convince you he's not biased. And you wonder why people insult your intelligence...

Hoodlum, on the other hand gave you a page full of numerous examples showing O'Reilly's bias through the misrepresentation of "facts". One isolated example of O'Reilly admitting he was wrong does not negate all the other times O'Reilly's bias has affected his "reporting". I missed nothing. This particular item was not worth responding to since Hoodlum already offered evidence showing O'Reilly's bias which, by the way, you have yet to refute.

"So on top of me already giving you an example of how I think their reasons have no backing (which you missed?), I really didn't need to say anything. I wasn't making an argument. I didn't accuse anyone of being any particular way, and then need to back it up by showing you an angelfire page. I just thought Hood saying that he doesn't show both sides, and listen to both sides was crap. It's just not true."

I honestly don't know how to respond. One minute I think you're replying to my proof of Fox news' bias, and the next your replying to Hoodlum's statement about O'Reilly not showing both sides. If you weren't "making an argument" then why did you even bring whatever the hell you're talking about up? I'm going to interpret your post mostly as a defense for the fox bias stuff. If I'm wrong, let me know (maybe get someone who can translate whatever language you speak into english for me).
Here's what you said:

"Everyone is so sure FOX is biased, but not one really seems to know why"

I responded by pointing out that you didn't back that statement up either and then I offered evidence of Fox news' bias so you wouldn't make ignorant comments like that. Then, you responded:

"I didn't accuse anyone of being any particular way"

Yes, I'm afraid you did. In fact, you accused "EVERYONE" of not knowing why Fox News is biased. You've been corrected. Just admit you're obvious mistake and move on.

"Also, just because it bothered me before and I forgot to say something... him being a registered Republican and switching it after someone found out is NOT "spin". That's cute that you want to use that word since it's associated with Bill, and all, but you have the meaning wrong."

- In retrospect, I agree. That was much more of a LIE then a spin. So my apologies. Bill O'Reilly is a liar. I hope that makes you feel better.

"And second, proof that Bill is a conservative is someone putting him on a list of conservative writers?

- Yes, that and ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE I provided suggests exactly that. If you disagree then why don't you explain to me why someone would put in on a list of conservative writers? Why don't you respond to the other evidence while you're at it?

"On top of Bill calling himself an independent (which would mean he probably wouldn't agree with being labeled "conservative")"

He called himself an independant even when he was registered as a republican. You'd know that if you read my post.

"..with no reason to lie, a lot of the views he puts out on the show are not so conservative."

1. I already offered a (obvious) motive for Bill's lying. That disease of yours seems to hav come back. Either that, or you're too lazy to read my posts.

2. What views does he put on the show that aren't conservative?

"I think Bill goes with that he thinks is right. His views aren't one sided. It's not all a black and white thing, which is something I agree with."

How can you still believe that after the numerous examples of Bill's bias and shoddy reporting have been given? For instance, that comment about "millions of americans" angered with the Canadian government? How do you explain all those examples?

And finally, Joshua, why haven't you responded to the questions I brought up about that Mexican girl? You can take the time to talk about the washington post, but you can't discuss an argument YOU STARTED? This seems to be a common theme here. People like to make general statements without backing them up and then ignore any evidence that suggests they might be wrong. I wonder why you all like O'Reilly so much?

Posted by: Lowdown at May 13, 2003 04:37 PM

You give a lot of opinions. You say things like "which I thing is not true" but I dont see a lot of reason as to why you feel that way or proof that refutes all the facts we presented.

You came up with one and ONLY one point where Bill had supposedly changed his opinion at the end of the show. I find it hard to believe he would take a complete 180 on his views. Perhaps he accepted some of what the guest was saying, I can't tell for sure. Could you please direct me to a transcript of the show, or tell me what the topic was and I will go find out for myself.

And your comments about people saying "Fox news is bias because its the thing to say" doesnt really have anything to do with the topic and doesn't help your argument.....

Well, not as much as me telling you it's raining out awyaway...

Posted by: HOODLUMinc at May 13, 2003 03:46 PM

"kinsley made up the 8 million dollar figure with bill bennett"

so how much was it?

Posted by: Lisa at May 13, 2003 03:20 PM

Nice. I love having my intelligence insulted by a couple of guys who half the time can't even spell O'Reilly correctly. Oh, but we watch the show. Don't we boys?

It was said that Bill is biased. I disagreed, and said that people in general like to call FOX biased because it's the thing to do. I then went on to tell about how Bill's show does have both sides of the story, and Bill does listen to both sides. Maybe you missed that? Because then, you said this:

"You claim people never have a reason for calling fox news biased, yet you give no evidence or examples (or REASONS) to support your argument."

So on top of me already giving you an example of how I think their reasons have no backing (which you missed?), I really didn't need to say anything. I wasn't making an argument. I didn't accuse anyone of being any particular way, and then need to back it up by showing you an angelfire page. I just thought Hood saying that he doesn't show both sides, and listen to both sides was crap. It's just not true.

Also, just because it bothered me before and I forgot to say something... him being a registered Republican and switching it after someone found out is NOT "spin". That's cute that you want to use that word since it's associated with Bill, and all, but you have the meaning wrong.

And second, proof that Bill is a conservative is someone putting him on a list of conservative writers? On top of Bill calling himself an independent (which would mean he probably wouldn't agree with being labeled "conservative"), with no reason to lie, a lot of the views he puts out on the show are not so conservative. I think Bill goes with that he thinks is right. His views aren't one sided. It's not all a black and white thing, which is something I agree with.

Posted by: Lisa at May 13, 2003 03:16 PM

"This is completely ridiculous. I don't know where you come from, but here, when you accuse someone of something (even as small as saying "you're biased") it's YOUR job to prove they're guilty, not their job to prove they're innocent. I just brought it up because it happens all the time. Everyone is so sure FOX is biased, but not one really seems to know why..."

Perhaps you're getting a little ahead of yourself here, but this argument is not about FOX or FOX News being bias. I never claimed that so why are you asking me to defend something I never said?

I did in fact say that the Orielly Factor was bias though, and Lowdown and myself backed our comments up with proven points, but were unfortunately met with "iron clad comebacks" like, "theres no argument at all there", " come on! people never have a reason. they just think calling it biased is the right answer", and of course my personal favorite, "you guys are way jealous".....

So I guess we have our work cut out for us I see...

Posted by: HOODLUMinc at May 13, 2003 07:47 AM

"lowdown basically called lisa stupid. how funny is that."

- That was certainly implied. And it was certainly funny. But I have a feeling you're being sarcastic, so would you care refute the evidence I used to support my argument regarding Lisa's intelligence, or lack there of?

"have you picked up a copy of the washington post lately to see half of the nonsense inside"

- In general The Washington Post does strike me as having a left wing slant. I don't understand why that's relevant though? If you're saying "Yeah, Bill's one sided, but so are other people", then I, and I'm sure Hoodlum, agree with you. As you might have noticed, but obviously didn't, nobody here has said different. Let me offer you a bit of friendly advice, you stand a much better chance of winning an argument if you discuss the same thing your adversary is. This particular discussion has nothing to do with O'Reilly being a joke of a journalist and you defending his alleged non-partisan news coverage, so why bring it up?

"oreilly has no reason to lie...being a republican, guess what? its not a crime or a sin or something to hide. its silly to think he would even have a reason to lie about it...let alone actually lie about it."

- Once again, you're arguing about something completely different then the issue at hand. There is absolutley nothing wrong with being a republican. Unless, of course, you and you're defenders claim you're "AN UN-BIASED JOURNALIST". O'Reilly claimed he was an independant. And that was a lie. I offered evidence showing he was in fact a republican when he was claiming otherwise. You have yet to refute that. You also said he was neither right or left, and I pointed out he writes for prominent right wing websites, and attends exlusive right wing engagements. Instead of refuting the evidence that was offered, you instead offered me this fragmented sentence... "its silly to think he would even have a reason to lie about it"
So you can't understand why he would possibly lie about his right wing affiliation? Maybe so people like you could defend him as "neither left or right" and bring an element of desperately needed credibility to his weekly dose of conservative, sensationalistic propaganda?? Hmmm? Just maybe?

"you guys are way jealous"

- Really? Please tell me what I'm jealous of? I think I should know so I can act accordingly. Tell me, is everybody who disagrees with you "jealous" of something?

(On a side note, if you're getting annoyed with me, I'll probably be leaving soon. This is like shooting fish in a barrel and I actually feel guilty about disillusioning the loyal O'Reilly acolytes.)

Posted by: Lowdown at May 12, 2003 11:56 PM

lowdown basically called lisa stupid. how funny is that. oreilly didnt lie about anything. have you picked up a copy of the washington post lately to see half of the nonsense inside? just like kinsley made up the 8 million dollar figure with bill bennett...the post can make stuff up too. oreilly has no reason to lie...being a republican, guess what? its not a crime or a sin or something to hide. its silly to think he would even have a reason to lie about it...let alone actually lie about it. you guys are way jealous...and it shows big time.

Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at May 12, 2003 10:29 PM

Lise, clearly you suffer from some sort of harrowing disease or affliction that has rendered you incapable of interpreting the phrase "Anyway, here's a detailed account of Fox News' bias:
http://www.angelfire.com/journal2/oreilly-sucks/foxbias.htm"

No reasonable person who took the time to actually read my post would have missed that so I can only conclude that you must suffer from dyslexia or some other academic disorder and I hope you get better soon.

Best wishes, Lowdown

Posted by: Lowdown at May 12, 2003 10:09 PM

Had Saddam complied with this deadline and gave up ALL un-accounted weapons, do you think the US still would have attacked?

--No telling. That's not how it played out so we'll never know. If he had done that, the threat toward us would have been lessened but there would still have been a huge issue with his ruling of the Iraqi people.

Do you see the irony in what you just said? You claim people never have a reason for calling fox news biased, yet you give no evidence or examples (or REASONS) to support your argument.

--This is completely ridiculous. I don't know where you come from, but here, when you accuse someone of something (even as small as saying "you're biased") it's YOUR job to prove they're guilty, not their job to prove they're innocent. I just brought it up because it happens all the time. Everyone is so sure FOX is biased, but not one really seems to know why...

Posted by: Lisa at May 12, 2003 09:54 PM

"they havent exposed any of his views as being false. he IS a journalist"

- Their goal isn't to expose his views as being false (a journalist isn't supposed to share his views, only report the facts), it's to expose his "reporting" as a farce. And they have. For example, read the part about "Canada's dangerous game":
O'Reilly says, "In the face of continuing hostility from Ottawa, President Bush has canceled his May trip to Canada and, indeed, MILLIONS OF OTHER AMERICANS are growing increasingly angry with the Chretien government..."

And they replied, "Millions of Americans? I had trouble finding any reference at all to the news item."

See? O'Reilly has decided how "millions of americans" feel, but doesn't provide any evidence to support his claim. That's not journalism, that's not even proper debate.

"he sees it how he sees it...no right or left bias"

- Here is proof O'Rielly is a Conservative:
1. Here is the web site that has Bill O'Reilly on thier list of 60 conservative writers:

www.townhall.com -
Conservative News And Information - The Conservative Movement Starts Here

2. At the 2000 Republican convention in Philadelphia, near the GOP convention, Bill O'Reilly gave the keynote speech at David Horowitz's conservative "Restoration Weekend" event, where he was introduced by Republican congressmember Jack Quinn. Fox's Sean Hannity also spoke at the gathering, described by the Washington Times (6/30/00) as the "premiere political event for conservative thinkers." How many Independents spoke at this event ? Answer - None, it was a conservative only weekend.

3. O'Reilly says he is an independent, funny how he only became an independent after the Washington Post reported he was a registered republican in 2000. The Factor started in 1996, so that means O'Reilly lied about being an independent for 4 years. Then he switched his registration in 2000, but only after it was reported that he was a registered republican. This is not only spin, it's a flat out lie.

4. His book is listed on the conservative book club web site. http://www.conservativebookclub.com/Join/JoinBookPage.asp?prod_cd=C5874

So please explain again how "un-biased" he is.

"bill was saying if she came from mexico illegally...and it was a human error, they did all they could...they didnt act maliciously and TRY to cause anyone to die"

- I'm just curious, what does her coming from mexico illegally have to do with anything? If she was from the U.S. would your opinion be any different? The article already explained that illegal immigrants are still legally entitled to medical treatment, so what's your point? If you think that law should be changed, then fine, but that's not the issue and you know it. Furthermore, there is such a thing as "criminal negligence". What if a doctor amputated your arm when he wasn't supposed to? I suppose you would say "hey, he didnt act maliciously and TRY to cause my arm to fall off". Yeah, you would have to say that otherwise you would be a bit of a hypocrite, wouldn't you?

"hey. do you WATCH the show? i love people who have seen things like three times and act like experts. we get this a lot when it comes to fox news. "it's biased". oh really? toward what? why? what did you watch? what did they say? come on! people never have a reason. they just think calling it biased is the right answer. it's really stupid. it makes THEM look stupid."

- Do you see the irony in what you just said? You claim people never have a reason for calling fox news biased, yet you give no evidence or examples (or REASONS) to support your argument. Anyway, here's a detailed account of Fox News' bias:
http://www.angelfire.com/journal2/oreilly-sucks/foxbias.htm

Posted by: Lowdown at May 12, 2003 03:30 PM

"lol you want bill o'reilly to go to the hospital and shove a microphone in someones face to find out what went wrong? THEN he'd be a good journalist?"

Well, thats what journalists do...they go and research the story, not hear it on the news and rant about it on their show.

Read my post right before this one. I take his opinions, call them bias, then actually say "why" I feel that way.....

You too seem to adopt the orielly way of thinking. You still havn't refuted anything I have said other than give me a bunch of here say and assumption....something Bill has become an expert at.

And for the record, I watch him a lot, read his articles and listen to his broadcasts. I probably watch/listen to him more than your average die hard Bill fan......only the difference with me is, I don;t sit there and listen to him say "French are bad, they are evil and stoping the US from trying to protect himself from Saddams WMD" and say "yeah, bad evil evil france...like you guys do..

I will go into the subject, look into the facts and base my opinion then.

For instance, France does NOT forbid force against Iraq as the US and good ol Bill would lead you to believe. Do some research on it. You will see France wanted to take diplomatic steps as far as possible. Its no secret Bush was impatient.

Now I have a very important question I want the both of you to answer, and I am almost certain I know what you are going to say.

At the begining to the end of the diplomatic campaign, Bush called upon Saddam to disarm, and even gave him a deadline. Had Saddam complied with this deadline and gave up ALL un-accounted weapons, do you think the US still would have attacked?

Posted by: HOODLUMinc at May 12, 2003 01:38 PM

"they havent exposed any of his views as being false. he IS a journalist."

Correction, he WAS a journalist. Hes now host to a Fox News side show.

"he does a lot of commentary, but he covers new stories...hes not biased."

He doesn't "COVER" news stories in any way. Just because he talks about them in no way means he covers them. When you cover a story, you make sure you have all the facts on both sides. That is covering a story. When you go in saying one side is bad, just because "he said so" does not indicate the "covering" of a story, but rather ranting on a one sided opinion.

Let's take his story on boycotting france for example. France was expressing their democratic right to oppose the war at this time. (and note, France never said they would NEVER use force agaisnt Iraq. Their whole argument if you had bothered to research it was that they would not support military action at THIS TIME, and wanted to use other means in our current timeframe) Did he ever say any of that? Of course not....and why? Because thats not "good TV"

COntraversy sells, and he is a prime example. Take a topic, take a side, and bash the other. It makes ratings, and thats what he's there for.

Looking further into boycoitting french goods, the site mentioned many establishments in the US owned by french companies, employing US citicens....so he mind as well said "lets stab our people in the back and cause the un-employment rate to go even higher"

But no...he never mentioned those facts...and why? Because that wouldn't cause contraversy....and wouldnt sell.

"he sees it how he sees it...no right or left bias."

Bill is far right weather you see it or not.

"a journalist has to be outside the hospital with questions? "

Yes. Thats what journalists do. The first thing journalists learn in journalism school is "where, what, when, why, who and how"

That is how a good journalist conducts and covers a story.....not taking a side, ignoring the other while bashing it like Bill so elegantly does on his farce of a "news" show...

" they dont tell the whole story...bill was saying if she came from mexico illegally...and it was a human error, they did all they could...they didnt act maliciously and TRY to cause anyone to die."

Personally, I don't agree with going to the US illegally, and then sueing, but they did bring up a good point when they said Bill should be spending his resources trying to get the law changed so things like that don't happen again, but instead he will rag on a Mexican family where things like this happen to millions of Americans a year. They also made a good point when they said if Bill went to a dentist and they pulled the wrong tooth, he would most likely slap a lawsuit on them....wuite the state of hipocracy no?

"i agree with him...just because he holds that opinion hes not a journalist? "

Just because he brings those opinions to open TV without ever giving the other side of the story in this case and so many others he is no longer a journalist. He is a ranter for FOX news to bring up ratings.

"theres no argument at all there."

..Umm, you can't just say things like " theres no argument at all there" and expect me to go "ok, you're right..." and walk off. I brought up a good argument with good points. You seem to be adopting the "Orielly" way of dealing with things. As soon as you don't agree, instead of debating with facts you say something like " theres no argument at all there"....not good for your side my friend...

"bill is wrong on this and this and this...and im right. hardly!"

But you see, you are again adopting the "Orielly" way of dealing with things. The site doesn't say "bill is wrong on this and this and this...and im right"....they say Bill is wrong here and here and here, and I am right, but the intricate part that separate them from bill is when they say "AND THIS IS WHY..." where as Bill just gets up and says "this is disgracefull, shamefull, pathetic, etc etc...and doesn't back these remarks up with any form of fact but rather contraversy and drama....and that is not journalism.

Posted by: HOODLUMinc at May 12, 2003 01:31 PM

"NEVER have I seen him debate something and ever take into consideration the other side of the story."

hey. do you WATCH the show? i love people who have seen things like three times and act like experts. we get this a lot when it comes to fox news. "it's biased". oh really? toward what? why? what did you watch? what did they say? come on! people never have a reason. they just think calling it biased is the right answer. it's really stupid. it makes THEM look stupid.

so anyway, just this last week, bill started out discussing a topic with someone, him taking one side, the guest taking the other, and at the end bill had changed his mind. the guest CHANGED HIS MIND. you'd know this. you watch, right? because you wouldnt be talking about something you dont really know about. oh no no..

Posted by: Lisa at May 12, 2003 01:21 PM

lol you want bill o'reilly to go to the hospital and shove a microphone in someones face to find out what went wrong? THEN he'd be a good journalist?

Posted by: Lisa at May 12, 2003 01:15 PM

they havent exposed any of his views as being false. he IS a journalist. he covers news. he does a lot of commentary, but he covers new stories...hes not biased. his opinions are all over the range. he sees it how he sees it...no right or left bias. a journalist has to be outside the hospital with questions? they dont tell the whole story...bill was saying if she came from mexico illegally...and it was a human error, they did all they could...they didnt act maliciously and TRY to cause anyone to die. they SHOULD be thankful. i agree with him...just because he holds that opinion hes not a journalist? theres no argument at all there. that entire post was- bill is wrong on this and this and this...and im right. hardly!

Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at May 12, 2003 01:13 PM

"lol. get real. for example this thing they wrote up- http://www.jgestiot.com/articles/get.php?id=3

too bad they make no argument. they just say, bills wrong here, and here, and hes wrong here...my solution? i dont have one..i just know that bill is wrong. dont post nonsense sites like this and call it true."

I don't know, I just read through that one and I see most of their points are backed up, where Bills are not.

One being:

BILL: Four, after I found out human error had killed my daughter, I would have been distraught, angry and bitter, and I would have had headed to directly to church for spiritual counseling.

THEM:This is a matter of style. Most people would be angry, angry and angry after discovering that the transplant team failed Jesica even before the surgery started. How incompetent does one have to be to allow organs of the wrong blood type to be transplanted? O'Reilly is concentrating on talking the family out of taking action when a serious journalist would instead be camping at the hospital door to find out how things could go so wrong.

____________________________

I have to agree there. A good journalist would be on the scene trying to find out how such a thing could happen, they wouldn't be reporting the "good will of the doctors"..

Posted by: HOODLUMinc at May 12, 2003 01:02 PM

"you dont become the number one show in news by being unprofessional."

Umm....with all due respect, if you actually call the Orielly Factor "news" then I have some swamp land in Florida for sale if you want..

The Orielly Factor is to Fox News what CrossFire is to CNN...

They are both side shows meant to attract ratings...nothing more.

Bill "USED" to be a good reporter. Now he is full of bias, one sided opinions. NEVER have I seen him debate something and ever take into consideration the other side of the story. If he didn't agree with him, they are labeled, and in journalism, one of the first things you learn is NOT to label sides, but to report both sides.

That is not professional journalism, therefore the Orielly Cactor is not news, no matter how you look at it.

Posted by: HOODLUMinc at May 12, 2003 12:51 PM

Take all the time you need. I went over every second case on the site, did my own research, and came to my own conclusions.

You are claiming they are "twisting Bills words" when Bill himself twists what other people say for "his own agenda"

Now I ask you this....who is the lesser of 2 evils? The man with public opinion, or the web site in the middle of cyberspace that exposes a lot of his views as being false?

Posted by: HOODLUMinc at May 12, 2003 12:46 PM

not to mention, they twist what he says here
=====================
BILLS WORDS: Each registration would then be examined. And if the person's record was clean, he or she would be issued working papers and a tax number. No blanket amnesty issued would be issued, but permanent status could be requested.

In addition, a humanitarian medical program would be set up inside Mexico that would allow people like Jesica to come here for treatment based on need.

These programs are doable. They are fair and would cost far less than the chaos we have now. So why are they not in place?

THEIR WORDS: As O'Reilly says this to the camera without a blink, every major city around America is still waiting for its funding under Homeland Security. There is no money for such programs because the United States is spending its money maintaining troops, intelligence agencies, and weapons for war. The billions that would fund this program and many others is going to Turkey so that its soil can be used as a launch pad for an attack on Iraq. You cannot have it both ways, O'Reilly. If you support the extraordinary expense involved in attacking Iraq, you will have to accept that the money spent is not available for other things.
=====================

Maybe they should do a TINY bit of research before they blab about nonsense. The fact is- Bill always rails against the government for tax waste...Bill would use money that is wasted domestically to fund the border program...you CAN support the war in iraq and call for changes to the border and various programs like this as well...fact is, the money IS there...it's just being used on a bunch of failed programs and pet projects by a number of politicians...which is something else bill calls attention to frequently. so, they purposely twist oreilly's views to fit their own agenda...too bad i just refuted that nonsense in 5 minutes. give me an hr, and ill have the entire site exposed...all the lies and all the twisting of words and ideas that they're doing. they lose.

Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at May 12, 2003 12:34 PM

The Blue Site

May 08, 2003

The Week