TruthSeeker24
Another debate about O'Reilly.
Thu Nov 4, 2004 14:58
128.82.56.219

*This is debate about Bill O’Reilly and other issues with Random S.

Random s: For the sake of honesty, Bill refuses to call himself a Republican, but HAS defined himself as a traditionalist. Michael Moore has liberal views, but would you accuse him of being a Democrat? In an interview once, I also saw him admit that Fox was "right-leaning" though he didn't go so far as to say that Fox is simply a right-wing propaganda machine (which it is). But had he done that, he wouldn't have a job, so it's not a shock.

Also, besides the 2 issues he mentions, he is also pro-legalization (marijuana) and has spoke positively about hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles. He has also critisized the Iraq war, the lack of WMD, and the post-war occupation (though he is not 'against' the war perse. As far as his childhood, he has publically provided proof that he grew up in Levittown, NY. Do your research. It's not the ghetto, but its not Beverly Hills. He lived in a house with 2 bedrooms.

Response: You don’t want to debate me because I’m one of the greatest debaters on the Net today. I’m the real deal and I’m only 20 years old. I’m honest indeed about that fraud journalist Bill O’Reilly. I already know that Bill O’Reilly refuses to call himself a Republican today, but on the majority of the issues, he supports Republican ideals, so what is he? Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Republican and is more liberal than O’Reilly so just because someone embraces liberal positions on a few points, doesn’t mean that you are not a Republican.

Your gracious use of a semantics game is done for some reason, but the fact is that as late as 2000, he was registered as a Republican. The Bill O’Reilly Sucks Website (with real liberals refuting O’Reilly conclusively I might add), records that voting registration document. It was only after 2000, that O’Reilly eliminated it and proclaims himself as an “independent” when he sucks up the Bush administration so much, that it’s almost unbearable.

He identifies himself as a traditionalist, but promotes the Patriot Acts I and II (against our civil liberties), advocates the Iraq War (unconstitutional), and was accused of sexual harassment with no denial of his dirty talk (that’s hypocrisy since he readily claims to have moral principles, but he’s talking dirty to a woman [plus not even his own wife] and is known to say defamatory comments about people which I’ve shown to you before on the Net).

I agree that Faux News is to the right of the spectrum, but O’reilly has only alluded to that and never blatantly said it publicly. A real man would say it publicly more prominently and if a station is left leaning or right leaning, it’s not fair and balanced anyway (which we both agree).

O’Reilly is just a coward not wanting to be fired by admitting the ideological imbalance of Faux News. Michael Moore is most probably a progressive and I probably made a mistake by calling Moore a pure Democrat, which he isn’t (but he does align with most Democratic causes and voted for John Kerry). Michael is a neutralizer who shows half the truth in his film Fahrenheit 9/11 (I’ve changed my mind on it since it doesn’t go far enough) giving tidbits but won’t outline all of the truth like others are.

O’Reilly is still a hack. On Iraq, as you said, he totally supports it. On his criticism, his words are never beyond the criticisms made by Republicans senators and generals about the war. Actually, His criticism is solely limited and not encompassing a wide field. It mainly involved the aftermath. Just because a man criticizes parts of the War, doesn’t mean he’s not Republican, disagrees with the fundamental principles of the Iraq war, or is not a political hack. Also, O’Reilly still says that Bush never lied, but Bush did since he said he would allow the U.N. to determine the way to go and when the U.N. refused his recommendations, Bush still went to war.

Bush said in a Polish TV station that WMDs were found in 2003, but that was lie and other lies. O’Reilly’s other limited calls was for ex-CIA head Tenet’s resignation and other minor shill tactics, but won’t advocate the immediate withdraw of American troops within at least a year from now. As for his hometown, I will be a man (unlike O’Reilly) and research the location of his birth more. I already mention that he wasn’t born in a rich area neither in a poor area, so this is a redundant tactic. I will not submit to O’Reilly, Moore, you, or any man, but God alone.

Random S.: I'm a very liberal guy. Too liberal to be a democrat (though I'm voting for Kerry, because this country cannot afford to continue down the path Bush and his junta have taken us down). However,I don't mind O'Reilly nearly as much as any of the other conservative talking-heads. He is a conservative, but I don't think it's out of loyalty to the GOP specifically, I think he genuinely is a traditional conservative, and that is probably based on party his irish-catholic upbringing.

Response: Liberals can be brainwashed too just like many conservatives, neo-cons, etc. I know liberals that respect O’Reilly opinions (but don’t agree with him), but I will not submit to his opinions. I will not cut O’Reilly some sack at all unless he admits that his show is purely bias, etc. I mind Hannity more than O’Reilly because at least Hannity is committed to Bush worship, while O’Reilly just uses deception to get his point across.

As far as him being a conservative, I’m now think that he’s fake conservative or a neo-con loving unrestrained war without a Congressional Declaration, justifies the record federal deficit, love Homeland SSecurity, and like civil liberty cutting. His Irish Catholic upbringing is pure smoke and mirrors to justify his stuff on his show. He’s not really a traditionalist, but an opportunist.

Random S.: Keep in mind I disagree with him on almost every single issue, and I'm not defending his politics, But I don't think he's the evil deceitful villian you are making him out to be. Look at someone like Ann Coulter who is truly intellectually dishonest and simply recites the daily GOP talking points and will defend Bush no matter WHAT he does. Take most of the other fnc guys for that matter, its the same thing. I think of all the Fox people, I dislike Bill the least.

Response: O’Reilly is a villain of Free speech. He blatantly called for the monitoring and censoring parts of the Internet deemed “slanderous.” He called Hispanics slurs. He said defamatory stereotypes about African Americans, he threatened Jeremy Glick on his show after Glick refuted the lies about this war on terror killing innocent men, women, and children, O’Reilly lied on many subjects (like the Patriot Act, taxes, education, Glick, etc.), and O’Reilly is a hypocrite (preaching about morality yet talks dirty with people, distorts information about the Pepsi Boycott, spins on Jessica Lynch, curses on the regular, submits to Bush, and writes Books for adults with disgusting imagery).

You can’t rebut a single sentence on this issue. Yeah, he’s a villain and we Internet gangsters have got his number. I’ll debate him on any subject, anytime, and anyplace.

Ann Coulter isn’t even on the FNC as an news reporter but an analyist and she always claimed not to be objective (I’ve expose her though for her distortions on history) and I respect her more since at least Coulter doesn’t back down and admits to be an ideologue. O’Reilly yells people down and other tactics as a shameful reporter. The other FNC guys at least give some respect (Juan Williams, Greta, and Colmes are the only real liberals there) for other people, while O’Reilly embraces permanent confrontation with little respect for those that disagree with him.

Random S.: As far as this page goes, my politics are most likely nearer to yours than his, but if you want anyone whatsoever to take you seriously, you should include all of the facts, and not only distorted facts to add to your position. A lot of what you said was legitimate, but there were too many innacuracies for this to be anything on a 'news desk' (not like the consolidated corporate media is going after him anyways, except for the vibrator thing..) It's a bit hypocritical to go after him for showing biased facts that don't tell the whole story, when you are doing the same thing.

Response: Your politics are your politics and I again realize that many liberals adhere to O’Reilly as an ideologue, but no villain, which is a mistake. I include all of the facts before and you just use a ploy to selectively use a few minor errors and propel them to massive mistakes, which isn’t the case. My proven thesis that O’Reilly spins, said racist quotes, and isn’t fair and balanced which is proven greatly. Look at http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/billspins.htm  to witness O’Reilly fruit and after reading that if you still claim that he’s deserves some massive credit, and then you’re living in a dream world.

Why does criticism of a fake journalist hamper you when you don’t even embrace most of his politics at all? I don’t have tons of inaccuracies, which is silly. I want you to name my tons of mistakes, which you can’t. I’m not a hypocrite and again show all of the facts. O’Reilly lying about certain issues is a fact. O’Reilly refusing to debate Badanarik on the Patriot Act is a fact. O’Reilly incorporating tons of spin on his show is another fact. Dwell on those facts and you need to wake up on O’Reilly.

Randsom S.: And you REALLY can't expect anyone to take you seriously when you start talking about skull and bones, and the NWO. I know that in your view of reality, there were missles inside of pods on the underbellies of the planes that hit the towers.. and a missle hit the pentagon not a 757.. and denver international airport is NWO HQ and has a huge multi-story underground base. That's all fine and good, but these are unfounded paranoid conspiracy theories. I was reading this page seriously until i came to that part. It really doesn't reflect well on you. You started off with a rational argument, but at the end you lost all credibility.

Response: Millions of people worldwide believe as I do about the New World Order. The Skulls and Bones is a real Secret Society regardless if you want to put your head in the sand. The Skulls and Bones was created in 1832 by General William Huntington Russell and Alfonso Taft (grandfather of former President William Howard Taft). It send forth an occult ceremony and many of its members refusing to tell its secrets today. Many of them are involved in drug smuggling, helped made the Russian Revolution a success, funding Adolf Hitler, was on JFK’s administration, were part of justices, and are in Presidencies.

They control a lot of this world and real scholars with real sources like Anthony Sutton have outlined that in books. I will debate that to the nth debate on end and every word here in this response is backed up by fact with no lies or theory. http://69.28.73.17/skull.html  is a site with a great book on it. You must be readily given misinterpretations of the New World Order. The N.W.O. is a plan by the elite for form one world government, one world currency, one world religion, etc. headed by a few. Bush, Gorhachev, Kissinger, Rockefeller, William Kristol, Gary Hart, etc. have all called for a New World Order.

One example of it being developed is the American Union who seeks to create one currency eliminating all North and South American countries’ sovereignty in many areas. There is a development of a global currency, a world tax, and a world court, so components of the New World Order are growing and to deny it is desperation. As for 9/11, there has been no evidence of 19 men committing 9/11 at all. The current story of 9/11 pointed out by even 50% of New York City residents is believed to be so much of a crock, that it’s sad.

Here’s some fact: Everyone knows that the Bush Family and the Bin Laden family had business ties for decades and the CIA funded Osama and his al-Qaeda network in ’79 and the 1980’s. We know from the BBC, that 7 of patsies were alive and none of their names were on the passenger lists. We know that MSNBC recorded that the “hijackers” were trained in American military bases and they were poor pilots barely flying Cessnas. George W. Bush signed W1991 to restrict investigations of al_Qaeda or face jail which is part of the public record aka conspiracy fact not theory friend. I will defend this to the grave and beyond.

According to Michael Ruppert’s new book Beyond the Rubicon (a real scholar with tons of sources to back up what he says), there were 5 war games that distracted NORAD and Cheney stood down NORAD so the acts could be executed (a May 2001 executive order had Cheney running stand down orders). Ruppert has also recorded tons of proof of USA government foreknowledge of the attacks on his Wilderness site. There is no conclusive evidence of a 757 hitting the Pentagon. (It could be or could be not, but the evidence is faulty). I don’t believe in pods since real footage of the Twin Towers proves that airliners hit the building alone without pods.

Also, Larry Silverstein (the owner of Building #7) admitted to pull down WTC #7 and this has been recorded by tons of people in the 9/11 Truth Movement. No object hit WTC # 7, but video footage have #7 fell in a symmetrical way denoting explosives. There were many explosives in the Twin Towers as well. There is evidence for government complicity and http://freemasonrywatch.org/rumsfeldguilty.html  has it, Victor Thorn, Alex Jones’ Infowars Site, Oil Empire site, etc. outline it. So to malign real researchers as extremists is wrong since in history the government has always been involved in terrorizing its people.

The Northwoods Documents back in 1961 planned for government-created terrorist attacks to justify invading Cuba. As for Denver, there is Masonic symbolism at the Airport, but I have no specific evidence on whether an underground resides there. Just because people like me exist, doesn’t mean I believe in everything people present which is you tactic of intimidation and trying to associate me with every type of conspiracy-based information.

A conspiracy is more than one person planning an event and carrying it out and many conspiracies have existed throughout human history. http://www.oilempire.us/911.html  (The Oil Empire Site) proves foreknowledge and involvement of 9/11 in a concise way as well. David Ray Griffin, Eric Hufschmid, John Kaminski, George Humphrey, and others investigated 9/11 more than you and believe as I do.

Random S.: Once again, I am very liberal. I'm a huge fan of Michael Moore. I believe in the legalization of all drugs, prostitution, or any other vices that don't infringe on anyone else's rights. I'm anti-war (unless we need to defend outselves which is not the case in Iraq, clearly). I'm anti WTO,NAFTA,globalization/outsourcing...all that good stuff. I don't trust the elite media for a half a second (especially FOX). So if/when you read this, don't try to label me as a 'neo-con' or any other bs, because that would just furthur my point that you are intellectually dishonest. This is just my objective opinion.

Response: Fully I understand that you agree with more, anti-globalization, etc. I know you are liberal, but why present this tirade against me. I’ve shown many logical information about O’Reilly, 911, yet you act if I’m truthful when the 9/11 Commission isn’t even truth about the real truth. I don’t label you a neo-con, but a brainwashed liberal who doesn’t believe that many people want a New World Order. I’m not intellectually dishonest but outline a man’s creditinals and O’Reilly fails the bill. This is fact no just an objective opinion.


Random S: PS = I encourage those who are interested in this subject to see Outfoxed; Rupert Murdoch's war on journalism.
http://www.outfoxed.org/ 

Response: I have problem with that movie exposing the falsehoods of Faux News, but isn’t it ironic that you’re criticizing me to not calling O’Reilly a great villain, but Out Foxed calls O’Reilly out as a villain as well. That’s hypocrisy of the highest magnitude.

Random S: So on

The rest of it. — TruthSeeker24, Thu Nov 4 14:59