O'Reilly Meets His 16-Year-Old Match:

ForestBrain

Bill O'Riley is an idiot. I've never respected him. He is a worthless bag of diarrhea.

bayleaf

ForestBrain wrote:

Bill O'Riley is an idiot. I've never respected him. He is a worthless bag of diarrhea.

Right On!!

Rushlimbo

ForestBrain wrote:

Bill O'Riley is an idiot. I've never respected him. He is a worthless bag of diarrhea.

You insult diarrhea.

Alex_Coe

ForestBrain wrote:

Bill O'Riley is an idiot. I've never respected him. He is a worthless bag of diarrhea.

He's not a worthless bag of anything... he is a very, very, wealthy bag...

down_ski

dharma69 wrote:

What's amazing is how differently we interpret things....

I saw that segment from start to finish and it was the 16-year old that looked (and sounded) foolish, not O'Reilly. Yes, he was there to supply the "opposing" view...he didn't do it very well.

Am I pro-O'Reilly? No, I'm pro-anyone-who-makes-sense-to-me. His argument against the show (NOT sex-education) that Colorodo school herded its students into assembly for is dead on. Whether you like it or not O'Reilly can be right.

I can deal with it.

Exactly! Being the one of the most "Liberal" forums that i've seen..this wont be taken lightly, thats exactly what i was trying to say

sponger

Me too. I'm not letting my personal opinion of O'Reilly get in the way of reason. He is a supreme douchebag 99% of the time, but I have to side with him on this one. That kid is probably some dope smoking wanna-be intellectual who thinks he uses drugs to be creative when he's really just trying to be cool and fit in with his equally cognitively stunted peers.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

When caught at being totally wrong twice, and trying to school a 4 star general on war no doubt?!.... this is how Bill reacts..

A very interesting look at Bill's character...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHUGCkROwJE

No one is right all the time about everything. Does Bill think he's a god or something? I don't hate the guy, but I think he's pretty full of crap and self-delusional quite often. His "no spin zone" a lot of times actually does exactly that....spin and propagate media based nonsense.

Oh...and well...he's on FOX so that about sums it up...

bayleaf

sponger wrote:

Me too. I'm not letting my personal opinion of O'Reilly get in the way of reason. He is a supreme douchebag 99% of the time, but I have to side with him on this one. That kid is probably some dope smoking wanna-be intellectual who thinks he uses drugs to be creative when he's really just trying to be cool and fit in with his equally cognitively stunted peers.

Just for the record, I would like to know. Have you read the entire transcript of the panel or are you just going from the clips Bill played ?

inmytree

"I have read your book, Bill...."

Haaaa haaaaa haaaaaa

good stuff, indeed....

sponger

bayleaf wrote:

Just for the record, I would like to know. Have you read the entire transcript of the panel or are you just going from the clips Bill played ?

Yes I have read the whole transcript, and I think any rational person wouldn't find it to be any wonder that the speaker in question:

A: Clearly advocates the legalization of marijuana
B: Speaks candidly about using LSD in college with no regrets

And that is Bill's main point. O'Reilly is not trying to say that the speaker was either right or wrong. He was merely making the point that the speaker was clearly taking a permissive and almost biased stance in support of illicit drug use. If you read the transcripts and don't come to the same conclusion, then please state your reasons as to why. Thank you.

http://www.bvsdwatch.org/images/stories/BVSDWatch/priscilla%20transcript%205-2007-2.pdf

Bu2

For a moment?

My whole point in bringing this debate to light was to show you how well this 16 year old HS kid was able to debate on Fox News with Bill O'Reilly.

As I stated before, I don't freaking care what the debate was about.

I just like the way the kid handled himself, and his facts.

sponger

Bu2 wrote:

For a moment?

My whole point in bringing this debate to light was to show you how well this 16 year old HS kid was able to debate on Fox News with Bill O'Reilly.

As I stated before, I don't freaking care what the debate was about.

I just like the way the kid handled himself, and his facts.

Saying that he handled his facts well regardless of what the debate was about is like saying he looked smart in a suit and tie.

Bu2

sponger wrote:

Saying that he handled his facts well regardless of what the debate was about is like saying he looked smart in a suit and tie.

Why???

sponger

Bu2 wrote:

Why???

I don't know about you, but I tend to think that facts are properly "handled" when used in support of the argument at hand. So, with that in mind, believing that the facts are being "handled" without actually pertaining to the debate is like appreciating the delivery of the content more than the substance. In which case, it's important to wear a suit and tie.

Bu2

condom.

If it was ME that was going up against Bill O'Reilly, I'D sure as hell wear one.

vedderelf

My mom is a big O'Reilly fan and bought the "Who's Looking Out for You" kid's book a while ago. I flipped through it and couldn't believe some of the stuff in there. He even tells the story about when he lost his virginity!

sweetpotato

dharma69 wrote:

What's amazing is how differently we interpret things....

I saw that segment from start to finish and it was the 16-year old that looked (and sounded) foolish, not O'Reilly. Yes, he was there to supply the "opposing" view...he didn't do it very well.

Am I pro-O'Reilly? No, I'm pro-anyone-who-makes-sense-to-me. His argument against the show (NOT sex-education) that Colorodo school herded its students into assembly for is dead on. Whether you like it or not O'Reilly can be right.

I can deal with it.

you make that sound like a badge of honor! when it really just shows that you're easily persuaded by someone who employs the lowest forms of communication. not much to be proud of, imo.

dharma69

sweetpotato wrote:

you make that sound like a badge of honor! when it really just shows that you're easily persuaded by someone who employs the lowest forms of communication. not much to be proud of, imo.

No. What that shows is that I'm someone who can actually be objective...even towards people that I may or may not have a favorable opinion of.

Unlike narrowmindedness and/or self-righteousness, that's a lot to be proud of.

Taft

Purple Hawk wrote:

I'm not a big fan of O'Reilly, way too self-absorbed and wayyyy too liberal for my taste, but it was clear that these kids comming on his show were given quotes from his book to divert the point at hand...he was too lenient in my view and should have called him on it...he would have if it was an adult, but probably didn't have the sack to do it to a teenager, who was obviously coached by faculty.

O'Reilly is way too liberal for your tastes? Seriously?

dharma69

Taft wrote:

O'Reilly is way too liberal for your tastes? Seriously?

Love that.

Depending on who you ask, O'Reilly is "too liberal".

The other side of the peanut gallery says he's "too conservative".

As I said...all a matter of interpretation, as we're all talking about the very same man.