Bill O'Reilly shouts down Michelle Malkin!? [Archive]

Sword_Of_Truth

3rd April 2007, 06:31 PM

Did anyone else catch O'Rielly Factor last night?

Bill had on Malkin and Kristen Powers and they were discussing Rosie O's latest 9-11 CT rantings.

I've said before that I don't like O'Rielly's poor handling of the conspiracist crowd. Every time he's had Barret or Fetzer on the show, all he's done is call them names and shout over them so they can't be heard. No facts, no use of real experts to explain why the CTs are wrong. Just "You're a loon! You're a kook! STFU and get off my show!".

So last night, republi-babe Michelle Malkin attempts to explain her point of view (one shared by most here) that ignoring the CTs is the wrong strategy and it isn't working. But O'Rielly won't have any of it, even when it's someone trying to give more detail on exactly why the CTs are loony. O'Rielly treated Malkin just like he did Fetzer.

It's like he's so afraid of the CTs that he won't have any of thier specific nonsense on the show even in the context of a proper debunking.

e^n

3rd April 2007, 06:40 PM

He's an idiot, a pathologically lying insane nutjob idiot.

I think that covers it? :)

Whiplash

3rd April 2007, 06:41 PM

I've seen shows where he was doing what you describe. I can't think who was on the show at the time, I am not very familiar with all the pro-truth people out there. One time I do remember it was some professor though. And he was acting just like you suggest, shouting him down and calling him names.

But my impression is that he doesn't even want to give the time of day to these people because he's so offended at what they are saying. That he feels the best way to deal with them is to call them out for what they are, loonies and liars, and to judge them harshly as a way of making them fall into line.

I agree that it's not working, and not the best way to deal with these people.

CHF

3rd April 2007, 06:46 PM

Billy O'reilly is a moron, incapable of serious debate.

Take any issue: 9/11, Iraq, terrorism, Bush....he can only shout people down and call them names.

It's why you only see him debate people when he can cut off their mic.

pagan

3rd April 2007, 07:02 PM

Scumbag O'Reilly is working his ass off for you guys.

Isn't that reason enough to reconsider your position?

e^n

3rd April 2007, 07:13 PM

Scumbag O'Reilly is working his ass off for you guys.

Isn't that reason enough to reconsider your position?

Yes because everyone who believes in a certain theory must think a certain way huh?

Seriously.

Dog Town

3rd April 2007, 07:16 PM

Scumbag O'Reilly is working his ass off for you guys.

Isn't that reason enough to reconsider your position?

So you are one of the people, against Jessica's Law? I wondered who your ilk was.
Unless you agree with him on that, of course.

FactCheck

3rd April 2007, 07:16 PM

O'Rielly is to news what Fetzer is to truth. He would have been a CT if he wasn't a mouth piece.

e^n

3rd April 2007, 07:38 PM

So you are one of the people, against Jessica's Law?

Actually I'm not entirely sure I agree with Jessica's Law, I agree with the principle, but the implementation seems flawed to me. How is this even relevant anyway?

Dog Town

3rd April 2007, 07:44 PM

Actually I'm not entirely sure I agree with Jessica's Law, I agree with the principle, but the implementation seems flawed to me. How is this even relevant anyway?

Was pointing out something I think Bill O got right ! He is rather long winded on the subject. He implied anything Bill was fighting for was the wrong side. Not gonna get all politco here, my bad, sort of.

Babbylonian

3rd April 2007, 07:46 PM

Actually I'm not entirely sure I agree with Jessica's Law, I agree with the principle, but the implementation seems flawed to me. How is this even relevant anyway?
I believe the point was that it's possible to think that someone is a useless, preening douche even if one agrees with their positions on issues, while pagan's postulate is that it's either all or nothing.

Personally, I lean towards the conservative side of the US political spectrum on many issues while still believing that O'Reilly is a TV example of the Peter Principle.

Brainster

3rd April 2007, 07:53 PM

Insults are what people use when they don't have facts handy.

ConspiRaider

3rd April 2007, 08:01 PM

On the other hand, it's a good day on Earth when a fool such as Michelle Malkin gets shouted down by anyone. She is insane. But what do you expect? She's a right winger.

Beth

3rd April 2007, 08:13 PM

O'Rielly is to news what Fetzer is to truth. He would have been a CT if he wasn't a mouth piece.

An interesting idea. Maybe he won't allow a proper debunking because he actually believes them but can't say so because he's not allowed to.

Whiplash

3rd April 2007, 08:14 PM

On the other hand, it's a good day on Earth when a fool such as Michelle Malkin gets shouted down by anyone. She is insane. But what do you expect? She's a right winger.

That would appear to be another unjustified cheapshot. Surely you are above that.

Babbylonian

3rd April 2007, 08:22 PM

An interesting idea. Maybe he won't allow a proper debunking because he actually believes them but can't say so because he's not allowed to.
I think that's overthinking things. O'Reilly shouts people down because it's considered (and may indeed be) "good TV." Giving the guy his due, annoying as I find him (I can't watch because I like more "info" in my "infotainment" ), the show works and people from all points on the political spectrum watch it, either to get mad or to cheer him on.

ConspiRaider

3rd April 2007, 08:30 PM

That would appear to be another unjustified cheapshot. Surely you are above that.
This is a woman who thinks racial profiling is a good thing, who defended the internment of Japanese-American citizens during WW2, who said that Norman Mineta (an interned Japanese-American citizen) should resign as Transportation Secretary because his judgment would be colored on disallowing racial profiling, who said when 3 detainees at Gitmo killed themselves: "Boo-freakin-hoo".

She also charged John Kerry of self-inflicting one of his wounds in Vietnam.

Yeah - I'd say she's insane, wouldn't you?

a_unique_person

3rd April 2007, 08:39 PM

She's insane and a liar. She's a right wing truther.

Brainster

3rd April 2007, 08:45 PM

This is a woman who thinks racial profiling is a good thing, who defended the internment of Japanese-American citizens during WW2.

Let me make a wild guess here and say that you didn't read the book, did you? Her defense of internment is against the charge that it was solely racially motivated. Considering that she's defending Franklin Delano Roosevelt for his decision (and indirectly criticizing J. Edgar Hoover, who opposed internment), maybe you believe that FDR was a horrible racist who did far worse things than George W. Bush (who, after all, has never suggested interning Arabs or Muslims).

a_unique_person

3rd April 2007, 09:20 PM

Malkin going nuts.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=69579&page=7

Ex-drone

3rd April 2007, 09:24 PM

I wonder if Bill fears that he sees a bit too much of himself in the CTs. His rantings about the "culture war" are similarly characterized by silliness, lack of rigour, poor logic, fear mongering and dark motives. In fact, he probably thinks that there are only so many dupes to go around and worried that the CTs will distract his army of halfwit disciples. Fear not, Bill; the CT crowd are your demographic.

Whiplash

3rd April 2007, 11:45 PM

This is a woman who thinks racial profiling is a good thing, who defended the internment of Japanese-American citizens during WW2, who said that Norman Mineta (an interned Japanese-American citizen) should resign as Transportation Secretary because his judgment would be colored on disallowing racial profiling, who said when 3 detainees at Gitmo killed themselves: "Boo-freakin-hoo".

She also charged John Kerry of self-inflicting one of his wounds in Vietnam.

Yeah - I'd say she's insane, wouldn't you?

I wasn't talking specifically about her, I was refering to closing line that I quoted, which was something like "of course she's insane, she's a right winger!".

I guess I couldn't help myself and responded emotionally. I really like this place, but as a conserative, I do find it hard to fit in. There are so many of you here who are obviously left leaning. I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is that some of you just gratuitously attack the right in such a manner.

I could also take pot shots at lefties over and over. But I choose not too. Not just because I don't think it's productive, but because I don't believe that all lefties are all "the same", so to speak. Some of them are nuts, and some are sane. Some of them are idiots, and some of them are genius. The kind of pot shots I would want to take would be over-generalizing the left in the same way some of you are doing to the right.

It's clear that some of you hold conservatives / Republicans in complete disdain. Completely black and white for you. I find that to be rather odd. It strikes me as being fanatical about your ideology.

I find it a bit intimidating personally. It's hard to feel like I would ever be accepted by some of you, just because I am conservative. I am just hoping some of you could possibly take a moment to realize that not everyone on the right is an evil, racist, bible thumping bigot, and tone down your rhetoric a bit. But failing that, I am just going to try to ignore such comments in the future, because it can only lead to arguments.

Gravy

4th April 2007, 12:09 AM

I'm just concerned that Sword is watching O'Reilly. Dude, don't you get enough blustering stupidity on the internet? ;)

pomeroo

4th April 2007, 09:28 AM

On the other hand, it's a good day on Earth when a fool such as Michelle Malkin gets shouted down by anyone. She is insane. But what do you expect? She's a right winger.

Conspi, Conspi. what is happening to you? Please come back.

pomeroo

4th April 2007, 09:36 AM

[quote=ConspiRaider;2489213]This is a woman who thinks racial profiling is a good thing, who defended the internment of Japanese-American citizens during WW2, who said that Norman Mineta (an interned Japanese-American citizen) should resign as Transportation Secretary because his judgment would be colored on disallowing racial profiling, who said when 3 detainees at Gitmo killed themselves: "Boo-freakin-hoo".

Let me add my own boo-freakin'-hoo over the suicide of a murderous barbarian who was only sorry that his own death couldn't have destroyed the lives of a few innocents.

She also charged John Kerry of self-inflicting one of his wounds in Vietnam.

She didn't charge John Kerry with self-inflicting one of his wounds--she pointed out that he demanded--and received--a purple heart for a self-inflicted wound. NOBODY denies that one of his scratches was self-inflicted. Your confusion on this issue stems from assuming that people are contending that he deliberately inflicted the wound. NOBODY is saying that: it was an accident. What Kerry's critics argue is that he milked three very minor wounds for medals and a ticket home.

Yeah - I'd say she's insane, wouldn't you?

No, she 's not least bit insane. She's highly intelligent and espouses views you disagree with. You can't refute what she says, so you slander her.

Juustin

4th April 2007, 09:58 AM

My favorite O'Reilly technique... I forget who I saw that he was debating with, but I think it's a trick he uses a lot. Whenever he's losing a debate, he seems to say:

"We disagree, but I'll let you have the last word."

Opponant states position in summary, video feed is cut.

O'Reilly says "Well, that's completely untrue. Thank you for coming on the show."

ConspiRaider

4th April 2007, 11:45 AM

[quote]
Let me add my own boo-freakin'-hoo over the suicide of a murderous barbarian who was only sorry that his own death couldn't have destroyed the lives of a few innocents.

She didn't charge John Kerry with self-inflicting one of his wounds--she pointed out that he demanded--and received--a purple heart for a self-inflicted wound. NOBODY denies that one of his scratches was self-inflicted. Your confusion on this issue stems from assuming that people are contending that he deliberately inflicted the wound. NOBODY is saying that: it was an accident. What Kerry's critics argue is that he milked three very minor wounds for medals and a ticket home.

No, she 's not least bit insane. She's highly intelligent and espouses views you disagree with. You can't refute what she says, so you slander her.
Pathetic, Ron, that you are defending this right-wing hate-spewing woman. Racial profiling, eh? Yeah - now THERE'S a good idea! Right! Maybe we should start with profiling Filipinos, which is what she is. Of course you need to understand that I am being facetious - I don't want ANYONE profiled based on race. The very thought of it sickens me. So tremendously anti-American. But she does. And you support her. Why do you hate America, Ron?

When are you going to start caring about people, Ron? I mean in a broad sense? Because THAT is what marks the main difference between right wingers, such as yourself, and liberals. Liberals care about all people in a general sense. People they've never met. People who've not even been born yet. Right wingers care only about themselves.

Witness the global warming issue. You're not going to find very many liberals who deny AGW, or that actions need to be taken NOW to deal with it. Right wingers? Oh you're going to find LEGIONS of right wingers who will gleefully scorn this issue as a "loony lefty conspiracy". Such as you've done in the past.

LibraryLady

4th April 2007, 12:12 PM

You might want to look at this Web site (http://www.sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com/).

peteweaver

4th April 2007, 12:29 PM

On the other hand, it's a good day on Earth when a fool such as Michelle Malkin gets shouted down by anyone. She is insane. But what do you expect? She's a right winger.

Conspiraider, insanity is not exclusive to right wingers. Ever heard of George Galloway ? He's as left wing as they come and as nutty as a fruitcake lol

ConspiRaider

4th April 2007, 12:54 PM

Conspiraider, insanity is not exclusive to right wingers. Ever heard of George Galloway ? He's as left wing as they come and as nutty as a fruitcake lol
Good points. "Insane" is a rather strong word, I'll admit that.

The problem is extremism, whether it's right or left. This Malkin character is an extremist. ANYONE who defends racial profiling as a tactic in the conveniently never-ending war on an emotion (terror) is an extremist.

Leftist extremists? I don't like 'em either. Not a bit of it.

Lurker

4th April 2007, 01:44 PM

[quote] Let me add my own boo-freakin'-hoo over the suicide of a murderous barbarian who was only sorry that his own death couldn't have destroyed the lives of a few innocents.
Of course the fly in your ointment is that the people in Guantanamo have not been tried at all so you ASSUME the ones who killed themselves are murderous barbarians. I'll contain my joy in the meantime.

She didn't charge John Kerry with self-inflicting one of his wounds--she pointed out that he demanded--and received--a purple heart for a self-inflicted wound. NOBODY denies that one of his scratches was self-inflicted. Your confusion on this issue stems from assuming that people are contending that he deliberately inflicted the wound. NOBODY is saying that: it was an accident. What Kerry's critics argue is that he milked three very minor wounds for medals and a ticket home.

You are aware that self-inflicted wounds qualify for purple hearts, correct? So it really is immaterial.

No, she 's not least bit insane. She's highly intelligent and espouses views you disagree with. You can't refute what she says, so you slander her.
Actually, there is a long and detailed critique of her research method and conclusions about internment on the net.

Lurker

FactCheck

4th April 2007, 01:53 PM

An interesting idea. Maybe he won't allow a proper debunking because he actually believes them but can't say so because he's not allowed to.

If it was only this issue I would say maybe, but it's almost on every issue. For instance, he told someone to shut up recently because she said the hearing on the recent Attorney firings were going to be transcribed for the senators only. They will not be transcribed for ANYONE. There will be NO written record of the hearing if Bush has his way. He called her a liar and shut her up. Facts don't concern O'Rielly. Just like the truthers.

pomeroo

4th April 2007, 03:54 PM

[quote=Lurker;2491137][quote=pomeroo;2490540]
Of course the fly in your ointment is that the people in Guantanamo have not been tried at all so you ASSUME the ones who killed themselves are murderous barbarians. I'll contain my joy in the meantime.

Guilty as charged. I assume EVERYONE at Gitmo, having been captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan, is a murderous barbarian.

You are aware that self-inflicted wounds qualify for purple hearts, correct? So it really is immaterial.

Yes, I am aware of that. The complaint with Kerry is that none of his wounds was serious--they were, in fact, little more than scratches--and he used them to browbeat people into awarding him medals. Nobody would be holding his abbreviated tour of duty against him if he hadn't decided to morph into Sgt. Fury at the Democratic National Convention. This is a guy who entered the national consciousness by slandering other vets as war criminal criminals, after all.

Actually, there is a long and detailed critique of her research method and conclusions about internment on the net.

Lurker

Malkin is a polemicist, not a scholar.

jaydeehess

4th April 2007, 06:02 PM

Scumbag O'Reilly is working his ass off for you guys.

Isn't that reason enough to reconsider your position?

Bill O'Reilly has down nothing for 'us' at all. He is akin to JDX who also shuts down, shouts down, and threatens anyone who does not hold his particular point of view.

I envision the 'proper' debate that JDX wants as being very much like a Bill O'Reilly interview.

skepticalcriticalguy

5th April 2007, 08:56 AM

O'Reilly is a conspiracy nut job. From way back. Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AQdphWO2SQ&eurl=http%3A%2F%2F911blogger%2Ecom%2F

Matthew Best

5th April 2007, 09:40 AM

Guilty as charged. I assume EVERYONE at Gitmo, having been captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan, is a murderous barbarian.

Well, was everyone at Gitmo captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan?

e^n

5th April 2007, 10:12 AM

Well, was everyone at Gitmo captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan?

No, this is simply not true. A large majority are suspected to have been random farmers rounded up and turned in for a monetary reward. The lack of proper criminal trials has convinced me the evidence they have of terrorist involvement is one step down from 'full of holes'.

skepticalcriticalguy

5th April 2007, 11:01 AM

Another night, and now it's O'Reilly and Dennis Miller theorizing that Rosie doesn't even believe what she's saying about 9/11 and Iran, etc. See, she is stuck in a bad deal with The View, with no ownership stake, so she's trying to get fired from the show.

pomeroo

5th April 2007, 11:16 AM

No, this is simply not true. A large majority are suspected to have been random farmers rounded up and turned in for a monetary reward. The lack of proper criminal trials has convinced me the evidence they have of terrorist involvement is one step down from 'full of holes'.

The official line is all the detainees at Gitmo were captured on the battlefield. The "random farmers" stuff sounds like a typical leftist fabrication, but I admit that I'm giving you my opinion, not presenting a hard fact.

Alt+F4

5th April 2007, 01:22 PM

Now we all know that the Irish are particularly good at three things: drinking, fighting and River Dancing.

O'Donnell vs. O'Reily. It would be the shouting match of the century, even money.

jaydeehess

5th April 2007, 01:27 PM

Now we all know that the Irish are particularly good at three things: drinking, fighting and River Dancing.

O'Donnell vs. O'Reily. It would be the shouting match of the century, even money.

Good idea but you'd have to separate them from each other by a very robust and thick pane of glass and not allow either of them power to adjust mic (audio) levels.
Then just to play with them you alternatly cut one mic then the other. while one rants the other starts foaming at the mouth and tearing their hair out.

Na that ther's gud tee-vee.

A W Smith

5th April 2007, 02:34 PM

Alt+F4

5th April 2007, 02:53 PM

Ok I have drank and fought but I never saw anyone in my family EVER riverdance :D Not even my late grandma who came over when she was 16.

Well what are you waiting for, you have the gene....start dancing! Do you know why the Axis nations were so glad Ireland was neutral during WW2? That's right, the "Celtic Secret Weapon" the Irish would have just Riverdanced their way into Berlin.

O'Reilly and O'Donnell should just challenge each other to a Riverdance death match. Whichever of them that doesn't die first has their show go off the air and vows to not speak in public for 20 years.