Were airplanes really in imminent danger last week?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Beyond that ... I imagine the man's lawyers would have a field day in forcing you to prove ...

+ lacks any form of crediblity
+ is a known and repeated liar
+ a plagiarist
+ unapologetic racist

Sorry Bingo, O'Reilly is well documented at all of the above!

http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Bill_O'Reilly

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1...a_outlet_id=27

http://mediamatters.org/items/200406180005

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501250001

http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/billspins.htm

One of my favorite O'Reilly windbag moments, where he actually called Mexicans a derogatory term while speaking with Rep. Santorum.

"O'REILLY: Oh, I am with you there. You've got to get the high-tech stuff there. But I'll tell you what. I've talked to the commanders, and they tell me, "Look, you deploy us down there, we stop the drug traffic dead"?

We'd save lives because Mexican wetbacks, whatever you want to call them, the coyotes -- they're not going to do what they're doing now, so people aren't going to die in the desert. So we save lives, all right, and we seal it down and make it 100 times harder to come across. And 79 percent of Americans see that, Congressman. You are in the minority on this one, and so is President Bush. I'll give you the last word."

Who knows ... maybe next time the US and Brits should just stand down and let it happen so they don't get accused of fear mongering!

Or maybe they should follow SOP and do things right rather than doing something that reeks of politics.

[Flash Walken]

wow, he actually said wetbacks on tv? I was using that as an exageration.

Not even in my wildest dreams did I think he'd be that brazen.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by White Doors

By the way, Chomsky is a LINGUIST. Him talking about mid-east affairs is like a bacteriologist talking about the half-life of plutonium.

So people can't be experts on more than one subject in your world? What a strange world you live in...

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Boy is O'Reilly really a piece of work. You sure picked a hard guy to defend there Bingo.

Quite amusing is his remarks about Canada being bankrupt due to our socialist system.

Bill spins? Ain't that the truth. Can't say I watch him regularly but I have seen some pretty brutal segments of his, including where he shouts over his interviewee as they try to correct something he misquoted. Guy is a weasel.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Boy is O'Reilly really a piece of work. You sure picked a hard guy to defend there Bingo.

Quite amusing is his remarks about Canada being bankrupt due to our socialist system.

Bill spins? Ain't that the truth. Can't say I watch him regularly but I have seen some pretty brutal segments of his, including where he shouts over his interviewee as they try to correct something he misquoted. Guy is a weasel.

That's just the point ... one that flew by you I guess ... I wasn't defending him. Nowhere do I defend him. Nowhere did I bring him up as a source in an argument or to prove a point.

He's a blow hard ... no doubt about it. But he's an entertaining one from time to time and he does put other "weasels" on the spot which is fun to watch.

And Lanny ... I'm sure O'Reilly has had some missteps, there is no doubt about it, but to list some left leaning media blogs and a guy that actually names his hatred by the site name is hardly compeling.

Funny to see me hammered in this string for even thinking of believing any critics of Chomsky yet others list bomb throwers to support allegations on others.

Where do I get off this one way street?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

That's just the point ... one that flew by you I guess ... I wasn't defending him. Nowhere do I defend him. Nowhere did I bring him up as a source in an argument or to prove a point.

He's a blow hard ... no doubt about it. But he's an entertaining one from time to time and he does put other "weasels" on the spot which is fun to watch.

And Lanny ... I'm sure O'Reilly has had some missteps, there is no doubt about it, but to list some left leaning media blogs and a guy that actually names his hatred by the site name is hardly compeling.

Funny to see me hammered in this string for even thinking of believing any critics of Chomsky yet others list bomb throwers to support allegations on others.

Where do I get off this one way street?

Wave them arms harder! Yup, you're not protecting O'Reilly. Never have, never will.

And you're right, it's the left that is attacking him. The simple reason for that is when you are so far over on the extreme right of the political spectrum that everyone else appears to be left. That's what you dittoheads don't understand. The arrival of FauxNews and all the hate mongering ######s that work there (and on Clear Channel stations across the country) have dragged the center line way off to the right. The established media is still exactly where it has always been, wobbling around where the center line used to be, it is the arrival of CNN, Fox and the new media (internet and the think tank publication houses) that have dragged the center line to the point where everyone else looks left wing.

On to Chomsky v. O'Reilly, I'd be more than willing to see those two sit down and have an open debate on any subject. Chomsky would expose him for the idiot that everyone "on the left" knows he is. Dittoheads everywhere would have to crawl back under their rocks and go back into hiding. I'd bet the over/under "shut up" line is about 30 seconds. O'Reilly is such a mental midget it isn't even funny. Joey Moss would corner him in a debate in minutes. Take away O'Reilly's ability to tell people to shut-up and shut off their microphones and he's nothing but a bully looking to have the **** kicked out of him. He did his best work on A Current Affair because it allowed for his slimy nature to be put to good use. What is really sad, is that scumbag is as close to a moderate as you're going to see on FauxNews. Nice guy to have as a hero.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Nice guy to have as a hero.

Wow. Nice conclusion you've jumped to. Care to make the same Flash Walken / FDW -> Chomsky conclusion?

[troutman]

Funny O'Reilly satire:

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/01/01moreilly.phtml

Bill O'Reilly: You also say that Mount Everest is the world's tallest mountain peak. I say the world's tallest peak is Space Mountain - tell me where I'm wrong!

Susan van Etten: [ stunned ] Space Mountain?

Bill O'Reilly: Space Mountain! In the Pocano Mountain Range, part of Joshua Tree National Park in Alaska? Where am I wrong?

Susan van Etten: Okay.. um.. first of all, Space Mountain is not a mountain. I beleive it's a roller coaster. Also, the Pocano Mountains are in Pennsylvania, and are not part of any national park, least of all Joshua Tree National Park, which has mountains. And it's in California, not Alaska.

Bill O'Reilly: Hey, have you ever been to Alaska, Professor?

Susan van Etten: Bill, I was just explaining -

Bill O'Reilly: I'm sorry, Professor! I asked you a simple question: Have you ever been to Alaska?

Susan van Etten: [ meekly ] No.

O'Reilly's sex harrassment suit:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...3mackris1.html

[FurnaceFace]

It seems to me pointing fingers at Bingo and insulting him with derogatory terms isn't very constructive. In fact, it sounds an awful lot like what someone such as O'Reilly would do.

I'm also not sure where Bingo ever says he's the president of O'Reilly's fanclub. I think he's made his view on him pretty clear: he watches him for entertainment value and from time to time likely agrees with things he says. It's pretty sad if agreeing with the odd comment people make brands you as a worshipper of them and results in getting insulted.

Constructive debate and discussion is something I find interesting and like to participate in because I gain different viewpoints and knowledge. When the discussion breaks down to name calling, I have no use for it.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

It seems to me pointing fingers at Bingo and insulting him with derogatory terms isn't very constructive. In fact, it sounds an awful lot like what someone such as O'Reilly would do.

I'm also not sure where Bingo ever says he's the president of O'Reilly's fanclub. I think he's made his view on him pretty clear: he watches him for entertainment value and from time to time likely agrees with things he says. It's pretty sad if agreeing with the odd comment people make brands you as a worshipper of them and results in getting insulted.

Constructive debate and discussion is something I find interesting and like to participate in because I gain different viewpoints and knowledge. When the discussion breaks down to name calling, I have no use for it.

Thanks man.

Nice to see someone actually read what I say and respond to that, leaving what they either want to hear or what they think would be helpful to their argument somehow becoming a position of mine.

And Lanny ... never debated that O'Reilly leans right, no doubt about it. But for a guy on the left to just state matter of fact where the middle sits is someone disingenuous in my mind. I lean somewhat right and likely find bias and leanings in things on the left that you simply don't see, and you likely sit to the left and see things that are biased on the right when I miss them.

And once again ... nice hero comment. I know your style so it doesn't surprise me. I've been very straight forward on the O'Reilly thing so I guess you have to resort to putting words in my mouth or grandstanding to prove a point. For a guy as up and down as you, my calm demeanour must drive you nuts.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

It seems to me pointing fingers at Bingo and insulting him with derogatory terms isn't very constructive. In fact, it sounds an awful lot like what someone such as O'Reilly would do.

I'm also not sure where Bingo ever says he's the president of O'Reilly's fanclub. I think he's made his view on him pretty clear: he watches him for entertainment value and from time to time likely agrees with things he says. It's pretty sad if agreeing with the odd comment people make brands you as a worshipper of them and results in getting insulted.

Constructive debate and discussion is something I find interesting and like to participate in because I gain different viewpoints and knowledge. When the discussion breaks down to name calling, I have no use for it.

Agreed. And I'm not sure how this discussion turned into O'Reilly vs. Chomsky, but it seems a little like we decided to spend our breath on "Tastes Great"-"Less Filling."

For the record, I'm in the middle on this one. I don't think the way that this situation was handled is "political"--that would have meant many more press conferences by Bush and Blair, sounding much less like idiots than they actually did. But I do think the situation was handled poorly. For one thing, if the investigation has been going on for months, then that means someone knew about the potential threat posed by liquids on planes long before the security standards were changed. Now that the actual perpetrators are in custody, shouldn't we actually be MORE safe?

Personally, when the TSA tells me that they can't stop people from bringing a bomb on a plane without taking orange juice away from a 3 year old, that actually makes me feel a good deal LESS safe. It's time these organizations stopped reacting and started thinking outside the box about ways that they can make air travel safer without sacrificing comfort and convenience at every turn. And yes--I think that a little comfort can be sacrificed in favour of safety. But let's not forget that in the long run those delays cost money--and if people start choosing not to travel because they're subjected to a body-cavity search and forced to fly in the buff every time they get on a plane, the economic impact of that would actually be quite serious for airlines. We need to be thinking of realistic solutions to these problems long before the threats become urgent.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

The fear mongering used by US government and the mainstream American media is laughable. I would bet the NBC report is correct, I'm sure their was a threat, but likely alot less imminent then what was being reported.

On a related note, I had to laugh last night watching CNN, now that the cease fire is in place they didnt have any pictures of war zones to cover so they rolled out a great program "In the Footsteps of Bin Laden"!

Basically "Hey American public, be scared be very scared, he is still alive and out there.....in fact he is coming for you all so be afraid dammit and dont question anything"

A card carry member of the Liberal/NDP post again.

Amazing how a British operation, with British officials saying immediate danger is somehow American fear mongering. If you had a relative die in 9/11 I think you would be a little less incline to talk about fear mongering - oh wait you must be anti war, pro draft dodging and pro desertion.

Give me a break

MYK

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

For a guy as up and down as you, my calm demeanour must drive you nuts.

Naww, the only thing that drives me nuts about you is how you can be sucked in by a charleton like O'Reilly. The guy is so full of **** it is beyond belief, and you lap it up like it was mother's milk. It's stuff like that I just can't understand.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Naww, the only thing that drives me nuts about you is how you can be sucked in by a charleton like O'Reilly. The guy is so full of **** it is beyond belief, and you lap it up like it was mother's milk. It's stuff like that I just can't understand.

You have two other people in this string pointing out that I've said nothing to support the O'Reilly obsession you paint me with and you come back with that drivel?

Speaking of understanding ... I fail to understand what you bring to the table in any agrument when you fail to even read or take at face value anything that anyone says.

So which is it?

An anability to comprehend while reading?
A need to put words in other peoples mouthes to give the impression that you're winning?
Or a general lack of integrity in discussing topics with people you don't agree with?

Or is there another reason that I don't see? Because it's pointless to have a dispute with someone that refuses to internalize anything that I say.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

^^^^

Just enjoying getting under your skin oh "unflappable one". Those that like to profess they have a "calm demeanor" are the most fun to poke and prod because their arrogance always gets the best of them. See, you have buttons just like everyone else, and they too can be pushed. I just like to see you squirm a bit in your seat and then pull the fence post out of your ass and make you pick a side. While you flap your arms squaking that you do not defend the man your silence on his faults says otherwise. It's like not casting a vote during an important internal debate, because you do not want to take sides. Those that obstain from the vote are usually just too cowardly to have their name on record of going either way (don't get your panties in a knot, I'm not calling you anything, just pointing out a generality). I think you should have commented on the content (from academically reputable sources BTW) rather than what you construed as the ideological bend. If you think they are wrong you could have pointed out where they were faulty in their facts. Of course by doing so would indeed make it appear as you were defending, how did you put it, "cable TV's most popular news man" (sounds like a ringing endorsement from you as you used that claim to backup your argument).

You may also want to go back and re-read the thread. You clearly defended O'Reilly when you said that his lawyers would have a field day with the accusations of inappropriate behavior (which you did not back up in any shape or fashion). It was then I pointed out the error in your comments by pointing out the rather long and sorrid history of one of America's greatest enemies of truth, one Bill O'Reilly. So stop playing the victim. You made the outrageous claim and you got beatdown by your own statement when the facts were presented. If you didn't mean it that way, it came out differently than you had intended. You should clarify those comments and what you really mean about your position on O'Reilly and his character.

[Bingo]

^^^^^^

So it is just a game then? You get your kicks from that kind of thing?

My first suggestion is to never assume you know what another is thinking, what gets to them, or how to push their buttons. You may think you know, but you don't, and you never will.

My reaction to diatribe after diatribe from your bombastic pulpit is always calm, without xxxx'd out curse words and personal insults. I ask you to stop putting words in my mouth as I feel I should stand by what I say and not by what you tell me I said, and I do it without losing my mind in some junk infested anger rant that you feel the need to spew on to the screen daily.

That's it my friend ... no shaking hands, no tears, no looking for friends to support me because of some insecurity.

Everyone has buttons but you'll never come close to pushing mine in any of these topics because I honestly don't care.

I do think his lawyers would do quite well in such a case because his comments were over the top and an attack on his character. Is the man a saint? Nope and I've said as much so you can spare me the defending the guy rant because (and I'll say it again), I never make him out to be any more than he is.

A blowhard
I agree with some
I don't agree with some
He's entertaining

That's been my whole case and I still stand by it.

The wetback comment did catch me off guard though ... I didn't know that one, and frankly that's appaling and pretty sad. To those that would suggest he could be racist and a comment like that is likely indicitive of his thoughts ... I can't say I disagree.

The old fence post thing is funny ... you bring that one out every once and a while to paint me as a guy that can't take a stand. Funny that you show it again now while also saying I idolize the most right leaning media guy in the states. How can a fence sitter supprt a guy that is so controversial in leaning to the right? That doesn't make sense.

The Chomsky thing was completely fair. You say I should have commented on the content but if you look back further you'll see that I did. And I took a side! It's only when someone put Chomsky up as the source to read to get the real picture of the middle east that I took exception since it took all of five minutes to find many suggestions that Chomsky is anti US, possibly anti Israel, a long supporter of communism, and a guy that has come under fire for his use of sources and taking comments out of context.

So rant on amigo ... put words in my mouth, and imagine yourself playing voodoo to my doll.

Whatever stirs your drink.

[Flash Walken]

what a joke

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

what a joke

what a reply

[Lanny_MacDonald]

nm.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

A card carry member of the Liberal/NDP post again.

Amazing how a British operation, with British officials saying immediate danger is somehow American fear mongering. If you had a relative die in 9/11 I think you would be a little less incline to talk about fear mongering - oh wait you must be anti war, pro draft dodging and pro desertion.

Give me a break

MYK

The way I heard it, the British coppers wanted to hold off on arresting these clowns until they had more evidence.

These guys were not prepared to do what we were told they were about to do. Besides passports and tickets (which are fairly necessary to actually get on the plane) these guys didn't have the brains or materials to make this happen.

I mean come on, do you really think these dimwits could cook up a powerful explosive with a couple shampoo bottles full of store-bought chemicals in an airplane bathroom? Someone posted a link earlier in the thread that rendered that idea pretty much impossible.

We were all told that an imminent disaster was averted. It wasn't true.

If you don't like the term "fear-mongering", how does "lying" sit with you?

Oh and for the record, I'm definitely anti-war. I think it beats the alternative.