Olberman calls out Bill O'Reilly? People that take Bill O seriously should see this.

[Hatfield]

This has nothing to do with left or right of the political aisle. Thankfully someone had the decency to call Bill out on his BS. Nothing better than exposing talking heads for what they are. The story also provides a brief history of that horrible incident.

Video of it (wmp) [Video is 7:49 and worth watching]
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-OReilly-Malmedy.wmv

Full Rough Transcript
http://www.crooksandliars.com/stories/2006/06/01/olbermannOnOreillyAndWesleyClarkTranscript.html

Olbermann: The bodies at Malmedy were not found until a month later. There were 84 of them, all, American soldiers. More than half showed gunshot wounds to their heads. Six had received fatal **blows** to the head. Nine were found with their arms still raised **above** their heads.

The fact that O'Reilly got these horrible facts completely backwards -- twice -- offended even his own usually compliant viewers. From his program **Wednesday** night...Wrong answer.

When you're **that** wrong -- when you're defending Nazi War Criminals and pinning their crimes on Americans, and you get **caught** doing so -- **twice** -- you're supposed to say 'I'm sorry, I was wrong'... and then you should shut up for a long time. Instead, Fox **washed** its transcript of O'Reilly's remarks Tuesday -- its website claims O'Reilly said "In **Normandy**..." when in fact he said "In **Malmedy**..."

The rewriting of past reporting -- worthy of Orwell -- has now carried over into such on-line transcription services as Burrell's and Factiva. Whatever did or did not happen **later**, in supposed or actual retribution... the victims at Malmedy, were **Americans**, gunned down while surrendering -- by **Nazis** in 1944 -- and again, Tuesday Night and Wednesday Night -- by a false patriot who would rather be loud than right.

"In Malmedy, as you know" Bill O'Reilly **said** Tuesday night, in some indecipherable attempt to defend the events of Haditha, "U.S. forces captured S.S. forces who had their hands in the air and were unarmed and they shot them dead, you know that. That's on the record. And documented."

The victims at Malmedy in December, 1944... were Americans. **Americans** with their hands in the air. **Americans** who were unarmed. That's on the record. And documented.

And their memory deserves better than Bill O'Reilly.

We **all** do.

[Hatfield]

and if you bother to read the transcript, I also find this disgusting and frightening.


When you're **that** wrong -- when you're defending Nazi War Criminals and pinning their crimes on Americans, and you get **caught** doing so -- **twice** -- you're supposed to say 'I'm sorry, I was wrong'... and then you should shut up for a long time.

Instead, Fox **washed** its transcript of O'Reilly's remarks Tuesday -- its website claims O'Reilly said "In **Normandy**..." when in fact he said "In **Malmedy**..."

The rewriting of past reporting -- worthy of Orwell -- has now carried over into such on-line transcription services as Burrell's and Factiva.

[TUSooner]

wow. Keith ripped him a new one, or two.

[TUSooner]

and if you bother to read the transcript, I also find this disgusting and frightening.
Exactly - the way Fox went back and falsely changed what O'Reilly really - and PLAINLY - said IS disgusting BS.

[OU4LIFE]

I like Keith.

[OklahomaTuba]

Olbermann is the last person that should be calling people out for getting their "facts" straight.

My favorite Olbermann moment of the last few weeks was calling Michelle Malkin to worse person on earth for the day for showing a groups phone number, on the very same day some jihadists decided to blowup a cafe full of jews.

http://newsbusters.org/node/4948

[Hatfield]

relevant and on point as always, but if you could take the time to answer what are your thoughts on O'Reilly intentionally misrepresenting our soldiers roles in being massacred by SS forces...and how do you feel about Fox trying to cover it up?

you know...the point of this thread.

[OklahomaTuba]

And perhaps O'Reilly was confused by this?

Of course, mistakes happen in war, and hardly tarnishes our efforts in any way.


Moreover, the 23, 24 and 25 December 1944 the city was bombed by the United States Army Air Forces despite the fact it was still under control of the U.S. troops. Approximately 200 civilians were killed. The number of casualties among the U.S. troops has never been revealed by the U.S. Department of War.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmedy

[Hatfield]

You really taking this route?

Please watch the video and then if you wish to discuss it we will, but don't sit here...not watch the video...and try and find ways to figure out what he meant when his meaning was clear.

You tell me...does this sound like it has anything to do with a bombing or civillian casualties:


"In Malmedy, as you know" Bill O'Reilly **said** Tuesday night, in some indecipherable attempt to defend the events of Haditha, "U.S. forces captured S.S. forces who had their hands in the air and were unarmed and they shot them dead, you know that. That's on the record. And documented."

[achiro]

I'm not gonna get into a long stupid debate but just want to bring this up. Olberman sounds like a man that is jealous of anothers ratings and made a glorious 7 minute report based on two 5 second blurbs. I'm absolutley positive that in all the hours and hours of commentary that he brings that there are more mistakes. It happens in an editorial situation like this.

Was Bill O wrong, yes. Maybe he was never corrected after the first mistake and still thought it as fact? You can't really think that he would purposely make something up to bash American troops? Really, if you've ever watched anything he does in reference to the troops or whatever you would know better.

Now as far as the "cover-up" from FOX. Stupid really but no different than most politicians out there. For some reason its become "PC" to make excuses instead of admitting fault. Thats the worst part of the story but I'm sorry, its not as significant in the sceme of things as the competetor (MSNBC) would like everyone to believe. You have to keep in mind that their ratings are nowhere near what FOX news ratings are and this seems to be the way they have picked to make the chase.

[OklahomaTuba]

you know...the point of this thread.

What is your point of this thread then? To show that someone on TV might not in infallible? Holy ****, good jorb then.

[OklahomaTuba]

You really taking this route?

Please watch the video and then if you wish to discuss it we will, but don't sit here...not watch the video...and try and find ways to figure out what he meant when his meaning was clear.

You tell me...does this sound like it has anything to do with a bombing or civillian casualties:

Obviously you did not read what I posted, or did not comprehend it (surprise surprise). I said perhaps he was confused with the bombing incident.

[Hatfield]

That isn't my point and you know it.

Have you watched the video yet? Or are you to busy thinking of ways to deflect attention from what oreilly and fox did?

[Hatfield]

keep sticking up for him.

If you don't want to talk about Bill, what are your thoughts about Fox changing what bill said on their website?

[OklahomaTuba]

Now as far as the "cover-up" from FOX. Stupid really but no different than most politicians out there.

No different, than say CBS actually showing FORGED memos trying to elect Kerry? Or how about Newsweak going with the fake koran flushing story @ gitmo? Or what about CNN and their crack reporter in Baghdad bascially rooting for the enemy during the invasion?

Somethings are mistakes and stupid, like this is. What the other media has done is MUCH more damning.

Like I said, Olbermann is the LAST person who should be throwing stones.

[slickdawg]

It's typical O'Reilly BS. It reflects on his (and his sheep) that he is
always right, no matter what, and will change transcripts to make sure
he's always right.

[OklahomaTuba]

keep sticking up for him.

Hmm, so agreeing that he made a mistake = sticking up for him?

The world of Hat is a very strange place, indeed!

[Hatfield]

achiro speaking solely to the issue of ratings, according to daily kos, ....Bill has to swallow the difficult truth that Keith's viewership is growing while his own is shrinking. In the key demographic group of viewers aged 25-54, the Total Day ratings for MSNBC rose 47% while Fox declined -13%.

(and i am not saying their ratings are equal just showing the current trend)

[OU4LIFE]

I'm not gonna get into a long stupid debate but just want to bring this up. Olberman sounds like a man that is jealous of anothers ratings and made a glorious 7 minute report based on two 5 second blurbs. I'm absolutley positive that in all the hours and hours of commentary that he brings that there are more mistakes. It happens in an editorial situation like this.

Was Bill O wrong, yes. Maybe he was never corrected after the first mistake and still thought it as fact? You can't really think that he would purposely make something up to bash American troops? Really, if you've ever watched anything he does in reference to the troops or whatever you would know better.

Now as far as the "cover-up" from FOX. Stupid really but no different than most politicians out there. For some reason its become "PC" to make excuses instead of admitting fault. Thats the worst part of the story but I'm sorry, its not as significant in the sceme of things as the competetor (MSNBC) would like everyone to believe. You have to keep in mind that their ratings are nowhere near what FOX news ratings are and this seems to be the way they have picked to make the chase.


actually, a watcher did correct him, and the video showed his response...and it was sad. So he WAS corrected.

just sayin

[Penguin]

Does anyone watch Bill O anymore?


Shepard Smith is about the only guy I sorta watch on Fox. He makes me laugh.

[OklahomaTuba]

Another great Olbermann moment...Republicans stole the 2004 election!!!


He never directly charged that Republicans stole the election or demanded that Karl Rove should be picked up for questioning by the U.N. But for 15 minutes on Monday, Olbermann pointed to a "small but blood-curdling group of reports of voting irregularities and possible fraud" from across the country, topped it with some vague partisan innuendo from Democrat Congressman John Conyers, and acted like he deserved a Peabody Award for Civic Journalism. http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_271992.html

Nevermind that the only ones to be sent to jail (that I know of) for election fraud in 2004 have been dims.

[Hatfield]

I remember a time when it wasn't ok to abolish your sins by saying well....but...uhmmm...everyone else is doing it.

what the hell happened to holding people accountable? It is ok to say that people from your party do wrong. Nobody is going to agree with everything that everyone in their party says or does so why is it that some people feel so compelled to defend to their last breath everything that a party does no matter how stupid or wrong it is?

the methodology of "I can't talk about the issue in front of me, I have to compare it to something else of change the converstation to something else blaming anyone else but me or mine" is pitiful. Way to champion that cause tuba wear your crown of thorns with pride.

[Hatfield]

actually, a watcher did correct him, and the video showed his response...and it was sad. So he WAS corrected.

just sayin

yes, and after being corrected he said that he didn't say that. :rolleyes:

It is so difficult having a discussion with people that refuse to watch what it is you are apparently trying to talk about (obviously directed at those who haven't seen the video)

[OklahomaTuba]

Seems Olberamann has a hard-on for Fox News.


Item: In August, Bill O'Reilly was the "worst person in the world" because he disagreed with John McCain about coerced interrogation. (The quote was lifted from the hard-left website Media Matters, the source for most of these attacks.) Mr. Olbermann opined:

If this were 1972, Bill O'Reilly would be Jane Fonda.
Item: On August 24 Brit Hume was named "worser", for something he didn't even say. No correction, retraction, or apology was forthcoming.

Item: Repeating a secondhand story from an anonymous source, on September 6 Mr. Olbermann named Geraldo Rivera "worst person", claiming Mr. Rivera staged a rescue. Mr. Olbermann presented the rumor as fact. But long before he went to air, Fox had released a statement detailing what actually happened. These facts were easily confirmable with a few phone calls. But Mr. Olbermann did not report the existence of Fox's statement, let alone its contents. The slur, like so many others, remains uncorrected to this day.

Item: O'Reilly had made a tongue-in-cheek comment on the radio about how Katrina should have just hit the UN building. Mr. Olbermann ranted about how O'Reilly gets "dumber" all the time, because such a flood would also engulf Fox News, just a few blocks from the UN. The name-calling and personal attacks were escalating, but not the accuracy quotient. O'Reilly's actual words:

Bush to address the UN, says we must be steadfast in battling terrorism. I'm sure all the UN people fell asleep. They don't really care about anything over there at all. I just wish Katrina had only hit the United Nations building, nothing else, just had flooded them out.
However "dumber" Mr. O'Reilly may have been getting, he understood the meaning of the phrases "only" and "nothing else". If Mr. Olbermann did grasp their meaning, he considered it less important than insulting a perceived enemy.

Item: A few days later, Geraldo Rivera was "worst" again. He was an "absolute asinine jackass" when he insisted that the New York Times correct a false story. We can see where corrections might be a sore point with Mr. Olbermann.

Item: On October 24, it was Bill O'Reilly once more, in an especially instructive example of Mr. Olbermann's tendency toward misrepresentation. Mr. O'Reilly was quoted as saying:

Now in the Great Depression, every American got spanked. And those Americans went to war during World War II and won the very intense conflict and showed bravery across the board, the Greatest Generation. The Greatest Generation, almost down to the man, was spanked, 'cause that's the way we did it in America. OK?
Mr. Olbermann reacted:

The Big Giant head again, explaining to his radio audience that we won the Second World War because of spanking.... He's about four minutes away from being committed.
But Mr. Olbermann's characterization of what O'Reilly said was backwards. O'Reilly did not claim that we won World War II because of spanking. The discussion was about capital punishment. Mr. O'Reilly said that spanking did not prevent us from winning the war, that it did not psychologically damage children. This becomes clear when one reads the next sentences of O'Reilly's comment, the sentences Mr. Olbermann left out:

So I'm not believing all these sociologists, these fruitcakes, who run around going, you know, you look at a kid cross-eyed, he's going to grow up to be a heroin addict. I'm not buying that.
Keep this practice of selective quotation in mind; we will return to it.

Item: November 1, Mr. Olbermann again proclaims Geraldo Rivera worst, because Mr. Rivera said he's tired of people making fun of him.

Item: A few days later, the Fox News Channel was deemed "worst", because it paid the sizeable expenses for a guest's travel to appear on Fox News Sunday. (Fact check: Fox News Sunday is produced for the Fox broadcast network, not FNC.) On another night, Jeanine Garafalo and Mr. Olbermann devoted several minutes to bad-mouthing Fox News. By this time Mr. Olbermann was ready to ratchet up the invective.

Item: On November 11, Mr. Olbermann spent an entire segment attacking Bill O'Reilly for some tongue-in-cheek hyperbole revolving around the notion that if San Francisco doesn't want want to allow military recruiting in schools, then maybe we shouldn't protect them from an Al-Qaeda attack. In a sudden fit of literalism (not evident when the topic was a flood at the UN), Mr. Olbermann took every word like a fundamentalist interpreting the Bible. The comments were "demagogic". They were "treasonous". A few days later, he attacked Mr. O'Reilly again, on the same topic, because O'Reilly had defended himself by pointing out the satiric nature of his comments. But Mr. Olbermann was having none of it. "And you thought Sen Joe McCarthy was dead," he intoned, charging falsely that O'Reilly was "changing his story again". He described the comments as "hate speech", and wished "good luck" to those attempting to silence O'Reilly.

Item: O'Reilly is worst person for November 16, because of a joke about San Francisco.

Item: On November 30 Keith Olbermann contrived to give Bill O'Reilly all three "worst person" slots: winner and both runner-ups:

This whole attack on Christmas nonsense that he made up, some sort of fantasy in which the liberals are coming to your town to force you and your family to not call it Christmas anymore.
Did Mr. O'Reilly ever claim liberals were going to force people not to use the word "Christmas"? No. Apparently Mr. Olbermann is being--dare we say it?--satirical. But why is it that he is permitted to use hyperbole to make a satirical point, but when Mr. O'Reilly does so, his words get parsed like the fine print of a notarized contract? Then, remarking that one can buy "holiday" ornaments at the Fox News online store, Mr. Olbermann moves in for the kill:

Who is trying to change Merry Christmas into Happy Holidays? Bill O'Reilly, that's who!

So eager was Mr. Olbermann to find a way to give O'Reilly all three "worst" slots that he misled his viewers once again. Bill O'Reilly doesn't run the Fox news online store; he doesn't sell the items; he doesn't write the descriptions. He has his own online store, proudly labeled a "Christmas store":



Mr. Olbermann considers the whole Christmas controversy to be "nonsense" and something O'Reilly made up. Yet on the MSNBC website, one can find Joe Scarborough railing against "PC police" who "create new words for Christmas trees", and promoting stories about "yet another chapter in the war on Christmas". If Mr. Olbermann can deem O'Reilly responsible for content he had nothing to do with, why can't one apply the same standard to Mr. Olbermann:

Who is promoting the nonsensical War on Christmas? Keith Olbermann, that's who!

Item: The next night, after the webmasters at Fox changed the wording to "Christmas" ornaments, Mr. Olbermann made Fox News Channel (not O'Reilly this time, though he never did acknowledge that error) worst because now it was not selling "holiday" ornaments.

All of this brings us to the most recent instance of Mr. Olbermann's jihad against Fox News; it is also one of the most distasteful. On December 2, he quoted Fox's John Gibson as saying:

I would think if somebody is going to be -- have to answer for following the wrong religion, they're not going to have to answer to me. We know who they're going to have to answer to.

Based on this, Mr. Olbermann suggested that Gibson believes his religion is the only true one--something Mr. Gibson never said--and accused him of "intolerance".

The notion that one religion is as good as another is a favorite construct among relativists and skeptics. Believers wonder how all religions can be equally valid, since they all differ in matters of doctrine. It would seem logical that they cannot all be correct. Could a religion that, for example, justifies mass murder possibly be the "wrong" religion, wrong either in theological terms, or just for purely sociological reasons? Mr. Olbermann does not concern himself with such distinctions. As he stated, one's faith does not matter: "What's the difference?"

Instead, he charged Mr. Gibson with "intolerance". We mentioned earlier Mr. Olbermann's technique of selective quotation. Here he has employed it in a particularly despicable manner. For in reporting Mr. Gibson's statement, Mr. Olbermann excluded the rest of what Gibson said:

as long as they're civil and behave, we tolerate the presence of other religions around us without causing trouble, and I think most Americans are fine with that tradition.

Where exactly is the "intolerance" in a statement that says we should tolerate religions we do not agree with? The omission of the rest of this quote--with its specific use of the word "tolerate", the root of "tolerance"--was deliberate. The purpose was to distort John Gibson's meaning, giving Mr. Olbermann the opportunity to launch another salvo at his enemy supreme, Fox News.

It was bad enough that he was again altering the purport of someone else's words to suit his personal agenda. But Mr. Olbermann, as he twisted the knife, made it a point to note that he considered Mr. Gibson a personal "friend". As malignant as some of Mr. Olbermann's attacks on FNC personnel have been, that smarmy aside renders this latest one uniquely loathsome.
Mr. Olbermann purports to be a journalist at a prestigious news organization, but for well over a year he has used his platform at MSNBC to malign people at Fox News. That the attacks have devolved into personal insults and name calling is noteworthy. That they have proven time and again to be misleading or downright inaccurate is striking. That they are permitted to continue is inexplicable.http://newsbusters.org/node/3176

[Hatfield]

Tuba why do you keep talking about all this olberman stuff from different instances?

Did I say somewhere that olberman is always right on everything? Or did i say he rightfully called o'reilly out for being an idiot?

and for what it is worth, your own article that you posted contridicts what you say. (the one about ohio)

p.s. you might want to stay away from the upcoming rolling stone article by kennedy regarding Ohio and the 2004 election.

[Hatfield]

the cute thing is that Tuba still hasn't watched the video.

[OklahomaTuba]

what the hell happened to holding people accountable?

Have you held your beloved Daily Kos accountable for the "screw them" comments he made about the workers whose burned bodies were strung up hung on the fallujah bridge?

Or is this just more hypocracy?


Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, who runs the Angry Left Daily Kos blog, had this to say in a post yesterday about the murders of four American contractors who were helping to deliver food in Fallujah, Iraq:

Every death should be on the front page

Let the people see what war is like. This isn't an Xbox game. There are real repercussions to Bush's folly.

That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries [sic]. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004904

[mdklatt]

Seems Olberamann has a hard-on for Fox News.

http://newsbusters.org/node/3176


I think that web site is the one with a hard-on for Fox News....

[OklahomaTuba]

p.s. you might want to stay away from the upcoming rolling stone article by kennedy regarding Ohio and the 2004 election.

Does Kennedy mention anything about the 1960 election in it, or is it just the same tinfoil hat crap he always spews?

I am sure he will point out that only dims have gone to jail for voter fraud in 2004.

[Hatfield]

tuba what are you talking about? I only cited daily kos because that is where i got the figures for the ratings of the 2 shows. I don't know anything about that site.

[1stTimeCaller]

I just love my little Dexter Manley of the SO. Maybe it's not a comprehension problem so much as it's a literacy problem.

[OU4LIFE]

I still like Keith.

[Hatfield]

Does Kennedy mention anything about the 1960 election in it, or is it just the same tinfoil hat crap he always spews?

I am sure he will point out that only dims have gone to jail for voter fraud in 2004.

so now not only have you not watched the video of the topic you are trying to discuss you now want me to read the article for you as well??

[Hatfield]

I still like Keith.

olbermann....not toby right?? RIGHT!!!!

[OU4LIFE]

Eh, I like them both the same.

[OU4LIFE]

I put the over/under on this threads pages at 5.

[mdklatt]

Here's more about the ongoing O'Reilly/Obermann feud: http://www.slate.com/id/2140168/

[OklahomaTuba]

so now not only have you not watched the video of the topic you are trying to discuss you now want me to read the article for you as well??

You have read it? I have never seen it, nor would I read his trash. The man has the intellect of soap. His claim to fame is his last name, and thats it.

Nevertheless, does he mention the 1960 election at all? He should know it well, since it was his uncle who got elected and all. And does he mention the cases of Democratic fraud in Wisconsin at all and the local operatives that were found guilty because of it?

[Hatfield]

I put the over/under on this threads pages at 5.

how much? that may determine my continued interest.

[Hatfield]

You have read it? I have never seen it, nor would I read his trash. The man has the intellect of soap. His claim to fame is his last name, and thats it.

Nevertheless, does he mention the 1960 election at all? He should know it well, since it was his uncle who got elected and all. And does he mention the cases of Democratic fraud in Wisconsin at all and the local operatives that were found guilty because of it?

i havne't read it. I don't think it has come out yet, I just read an article on what his article is going to be about.

[OklahomaTuba]

i havne't read it. I don't think it has come out yet, I just read an article on what his article is going to be about.
Post it if you see it. I may enjoy getting a laugh out of it.

[slickdawg]

I don't care if they are secret gay lovers.

O'Reilly was wrong, caught on tape, and a massive cover up followed.

[1stTimeCaller]

Tuba must endorse Fox News' actions on changing the facts because he hasn't denounced their actions.

[mrowl]

I don't give a rats *** about this story, but the ****ing match going on in here is funny. :D

[OklahomaTuba]

I don't care if they are secret gay lovers.

O'Reilly was wrong, caught on tape, and a massive cover up followed.

Heh, massive cover up.

Never mind he admitted he had it wrong, or that a bombing occured in the same town that killed lord knows how many US troops, or that it happen 50+ years ago.

Thank GOD we have establised that Bill O'Reilly is not infallible. We can all go back to work now and live better lives now.

[Hamhock]

If Fox covered it up, Foxnews = sucks.

[OklahomaTuba]

I haven't seen where Fox News did anything.

What did they do?

[1stTimeCaller]

post No. 2

have a coworker read it to you.

[mdklatt]

Tuba must endorse Fox News' actions on changing the facts because he hasn't denounced their actions.

Right and wrong is not determined by some objective standard but why whether or not the perpetrator has an 'R' or a 'D' next to their name. Duh!

[Hatfield]

Heh, massive cover up.

Never mind he admitted he had it wrong, or that a bombing occured in the same town that killed lord knows how many US troops, or that it happen 50+ years ago.

Thank GOD we have establised that Bill O'Reilly is not infallible. We can all go back to work now and live better lives now.

he did not admit he had it wrong. When called on it by a viewer he told the viewer that isn't what he said. (if you watched the video you would know this)

his description of the event was exactly right only the roles were reversed. He wasn't talking about any bombing. (if you watched the video you would know this)

Nobody was trying to prove he was infallible.

[Hamhock]

If this is true (as usual, i'm doing no independent research on this topic, just assuming the geni of the SO know what they are talking about), I have lost a lot of respect for Fox. (I lost respect for O'Reilly long ago).

I hate it when people can't admit their wrong. Why don't people understand that you actually GAIN credibility by making a mistake, then owning up to it??

[OklahomaTuba]

post No. 2

have a coworker read it to you.

So, where is the transcript then? I looked on the foxnews site and didn't find it.

[OklahomaTuba]

Right and wrong is not determined by some objective standard but why whether or not the perpetrator has an 'R' or a 'D' next to their name. Duh!

Thats funny, and ironic, coming from you.

[mdklatt]

Why don't people understand that you actually GAIN credibility by making a mistake, then owning up to it??

Too bad the Bush administration doesn't read the SO.

[OklahomaTuba]

Nobody was trying to prove he was infallible.

Well thats good. I mean we wouldn't want someone who is loose with facts pointing out the mistakes of others, would we?

[OU4LIFE]

the spread just went up to 7 pages.

[OklahomaTuba]

If this is true (as usual, i'm doing no independent research on this topic, just assuming the geni of the SO know what they are talking about), I have lost a lot of respect for Fox. (I lost respect for O'Reilly long ago).

I hate it when people can't admit their wrong. Why don't people understand that you actually GAIN credibility by making a mistake, then owning up to it??
As far as I can tell, Fox is the only network that hasn't had a problem with blatently making up news.

[Hamhock]

the spread just went up to 7 pages.

I'll see your 7 pages and raise you...


I think abortion should be illegal in EVERY circumstance. Anyone performing an abortion or having one should face murder charges.

;)

[Hamhock]

As far as I can tell, Fox is the only network that hasn't had a problem with blatently making up news.


Wholly irrelevant.

[Hatfield]

Well thats good. I mean we wouldn't want someone who is loose with facts pointing out the mistakes of others, would we?

just a question how does someone who is loose with facts pointing out the mistake of someone else alter that other person's mistake?

[SCOUT]

Here is a brief summary to this point.

Bill O'Reilly used an inaccurate analogy from WWII
He got called on it but denied it
Fox News took the chickens*** approach of changing the transcripts to cover it up
Keith Olbermann hates Bill O'Reilly and spent an entire segment on the subject
Keith Olbermann should probably be careful about calling others for accuracy because he has done it too

Oh, and your opinion of this story should be based on your party affiliation.

Did I miss anything?

[OklahomaTuba]

Wholly irrelevant.
How so?

You mentioned losing lots of respect for fox news.

As opposed to what, OTHER news outlets?

I think if you stack up Fox with say, CNN, SEE BS, ABC, etc, you will find it has been a bastion of integrity.

And I suspect that if O'Reilly didn't apologize, which I thought he had, then he will admit his mistake, as he always does.

[Hatfield]

So, where is the transcript then? I looked on the foxnews site and didn't find it.


you didn't look very hard.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197635,00.html

[OUAndy1807]

I love it when people try to justify their political views by picking sides with some pundit ********* and living vicariously through them on every issue and debate. congrats, everyone involved has been sucked into a fake battle between two talking heads that's being used to get ratings. O'Reilly was on a tabloid show, Olberman is a sportcaster, and they're both insufferable.

[Hatfield]

As far as I can tell, Fox is the only network that hasn't had a problem with blatently making up news.

i agree with the structure of your sentence

[OklahomaTuba]

just a question how does someone who is loose with facts pointing out the mistake of someone else alter that other person's mistake?

I think it blows it out of context (this is a minor thing really), and shows the hypocrisy and "do anything for a rating" tactics of Olbermann.

I can't blame Olbermann for the "do anything for a rating" tactics, since nearly no one watches his show (except newsbuters.com and you it seems). If I was barley hanging on ratings wise, I would go after the big dogs as well I guess.

[Hamhock]

How so?

You mentioned losing lots of respect for fox news.

As opposed to what, OTHER news outlets?

I think if you stack up Fox with say, CNN, SEE BS, ABC, etc, you will find it has been a bastion of integrity.

And I suspect that if O'Reilly didn't apologize, which I thought he had, then he will admit his mistake, as he always does.

Hatfield (who I rarely agree with and think is a liberal commie and embodies all that is wrong with this country ;) ) didn't say Fox screwed up and all others haven't. He said foxnews/oreilly screwed up.

Just because the other outlets suck doesn't justify unethical behavior for Fox.

[Hatfield]

the fact that you think nobody is watching olberman shows you don't know what you are talking about.

so the issue then becomes we shouldn't focus on someone's mistake but we should rather focus on the person bringing the mistake to our attention because that is more important?

[1stTimeCaller]

Tuba still has not denounced the changing of the transcript.

Tuba is in favor of all news organizations changing transcripts to make them look better.

Tuba endorses news organizations that change facts at their whim.

[mdklatt]

how does someone who is loose with facts pointing out the mistake of someone else alter that other person's mistake?

Not enough information. Which one is the Democrat and which one is the Republican?

[OklahomaTuba]

you didn't look very hard.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197635,00.html


O'REILLY: And in Normandy, as you know, U.S. forces captured S.S. forces, who had their hands in the air. And they were unarmed. And they shot them down. You know that. That's on the record. Been documented.

Well, there it is.

Again, sounds like he was confused to me on his facts. And if fox changed it, they shouldn't have.

Big F'n Deal.

[Hamhock]

Well, there it is.

Again, sounds like he was confused to me. Big F'n Deal.


for me, the deal is created if/when Fox changed the transcript.

[Hatfield]

Not enough information. Which one is the Democrat and which one is the Republican?


what if one is a whig and the other torrie....and not wilson

[OklahomaTuba]

the fact that you think nobody is watching olberman shows you don't know what you are talking about.

Hmm, lets see, low rated cable news network. I think that just about defines not getting watched much.

[OklahomaTuba]

for me, the deal is created if/when Fox changed the transcript.
Sure, I can agree with that.

But if O'Reilly contends he said normandy, than Fox is stuck IMO. I am betting Fox doesn't even realize one of their low rated competitors even said anything about it.

Tough position to be in, but minor nonetheless compared to what the other news networks have pulled.

Oh well, back to work.

[Fugue]

Ratt-Round and Round

oops, sorry. wrong thread.







or not. :texan:

[OU4LIFE]

ok, i'm changing the over/under to 59 pages if this devolves into a what are you listening to thread.

[TUSooner]

No different, than say CBS actually showing FORGED memos trying to elect Kerry? Or how about Newsweak going with the fake koran flushing story @ gitmo? Or what about CNN and their crack reporter in Baghdad bascially rooting for the enemy during the invasion?

Somethings are mistakes and stupid, like this is. What the other media has done is MUCH more damning.

Like I said, Olbermann is the LAST person who should be throwing stones.
THIS JUST IN !! Two wrongs DO make a right!

I thought Keith kind-of made a meal out of :twinkies: , sure. But It was embarrassing that O'Reilly could get it SO wrong, and PERSIST at it (regardless of his motive or lack thereof). And there was absolutley no excuse for Fox to doctor the transcript to cover Bill's arse.
The fact that other people are "bad" doesn't make "bad" OK. (That's where the "two wrongs" thingy comes in. :rolleyes: )

[Tear Down This Wall]

First, isn't Olberman a failed sportscaster.

Two, ever hear of the firebombing of Dresden?

Three, pine away for O'Reilly's demise? Step away from the ledge and go live your life. If O'Reilly is that much of a turn off for you, simply don't watch him.

Four, oh...you mean Olberman the failed sportscaster. M'kay.

[OklahomaTuba]

THIS JUST IN !! Two wrongs DO make a right!

I thought Keith kind-of made a meal out of :twinkies: , sure. But It was embarrassing that O'Reilly could get it SO wrong, and PERSIST at it (regardless of his motive or lack thereof). And there was absolutley no excuse for Fox to doctor the transcript to cover Bill's arse.
The fact that other people are "bad" doesn't make "bad" OK. (That's where the "two wrongs" thingy comes in. :rolleyes: )
THIS JUST IN, I never said it was right. If I did, please show it.

I was actually comparing this "massive coverup" to other "massive cover-ups" like the "fake but accurate forged memos, etc, and the fact that Olbermann's only claim to fame seems to be watching O'Reilly all the time and making sure what he says on a daily basis is error free, then going after him when it turns out he isn't infallible, only adds to the absurdity of all this.

[1stTimeCaller]

Tuba, start at the first post and re-read this thread or have a coworker read it to you.

Please note your first few responses in this thread.

Does one of them say anything remotely like, ' If Fox changed the transcript to cover Bill mistake then that's not good.' ?

[Hatfield]

dear 1tc, since at post 47 he still hadn't seen (for lack of looking/reading/whatever) anything suggestion fox changed anything i am guessing he will tell you how you hate freedom rather than respond to your question.

[Rhino]

First, isn't Olberman a failed sportscaster. Is this supposed to be a question?

Is he a former sportscaster? Mostly. Although he co-hosts a portion of the Dan Patrick Radio Show.

Is he a failed sportscaster? Not even close.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Is he a failed sportscaster? Not even close.

So, he's still doing sportscasting on TV then?

[1stTimeCaller]

So, he's still doing sportscasting on TV then?

are you a failed student? Are you still in school?

[Tear Down This Wall]

No. But, I was never fired/kicked out of any school either.

[1stTimeCaller]

He was fired from ESPN? I thought he quit so he could do a news type show.


Born: Jan. 27, 1959 in New York City

In high school he worked as a play-by-play announcer for the school hockey team on WHTR under then sports director, Chris Berman.

He Graduated from Cornell University in 1979 with a bachelor of science degree in communications arts.

(79-80) He worked as a sports reporter for UPI
(80-82) Sports reporter for RKO-Radio
(80-83) Sports reporter at WNEW-AM
(81-84) National sports reporter and anchor for CNN
All in New York City

(84) He worked as a sports reporter and anchor for WCVB-TV in Boston.

(85-88) Sports reporter and weeknight sports anchor for KTLA-TV in Los Angeles.
(88-91) Sports anchor and sports reporter for KCBS-TV in Los Angeles and hosted the Keith Olbermann Show, a 30 minute Sunday night program which reviewed the week in sports. Also he provided daily sports commentaries for KNX-AM (86-91)
While working in Los Angeles he received 11 Golden Mike Awards (given by the California Radio and Television News Association) for Best Sportcaster and Best Sportscast between 1982-91. Also, he was voted California Associated Press Sportscaster of the Year 3 times (85,87,89)He also won a Cable Ace Award in 1995 for Best Sportscaster.

January '92- Helped to launch ESPN Sports Radio serving as a weekend co-host until June 1993. He continues to provide commentaries for the radio network.
March '92-He joins SportsCenter and host the then 11:30 edition with tag-team partner Dan Patrick.

Oct '93-March '94-He served as a co-anchor for ESPN2's SportsNight and then rejoins SportsCenter.

('97) His book "The Big Show", which he co-wrote with Dan Patrick, is released. The book offers an inside look into the making of SportsCenter as well as how Keith got to where he is today.
Today Keith can be seen in the Boston Market commercials saying "Eat Something"

In June of 1997 it was announced that Olbermann would be leaving SportsCenter. There were many reasons that combined to his resignation such as his desire to live in New York City ( It was hard for him to get around in Bristol because he can't drive due to an accident that damaged his depth perceptoin ), his appearance on "The Daily Show" caused problems because he did not get permission from ESPiNheads to appear on the show, and his desire to take on something more serious like regular news which he will be covering on MSNBC in the fall.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Sure, that's what he says. He got into a pis*sing match with ESPN brass (Berman) and lost is what happened. Then kicked around here and there before surfacing at MSNBC.

[lefty]

THIS JUST IN, I never said it was right. If I did, please show it.

I was actually comparing this "massive coverup" to other "massive cover-ups" like the "fake but accurate forged memos, etc, and the fact that Olbermann's only claim to fame seems to be watching O'Reilly all the time and making sure what he says on a daily basis is error free, then going after him when it turns out he isn't infallible, only adds to the absurdity of all this.

What did CBS or Dan Rather cover-up. Rather maintained the documents were genuine until it became impossible to do so any longer. At that point, he got on national TV and admitted his error. This episode pretty much lead to his resignation from his anchor position. Whether you like or dislike Rather, he didn't hide from his error in judgement. He nutted up and took responsiblity.

[slickdawg]

But Rather waited until he had no other options, and already looked like a fool.


Wait, O'REilly is already a fool.

[1stTimeCaller]

No. But, I was never fired/kicked out of any school either.

sure. that's what you say.

:D

[Tear Down This Wall]

No, it's what my three degrees say :D

[1stTimeCaller]

I'm glad that I didn't need three degrees to get a job.



I'm just messing with you, please don't get mad or angry.

[Tear Down This Wall]

I don't have a job, I own a job. It's different being the employer. And, I'm never mad.

[soonerhubs]

I don't have a job, I own a job. It's different being the employer. And, I'm never mad.
Are you hiring?

[OklahomaTuba]

Tuba, start at the first post and re-read this thread or have a coworker read it to you.

Please note your first few responses in this thread.

Does one of them say anything remotely like, ' If Fox changed the transcript to cover Bill mistake then that's not good.' ?

Ahh, so because I didn't type those exact words, it must mean that I think Fox "supposedly" changing a transcript is OK.

Talk about putting words in ones mouth.

Also not sure why you insist on resorting to the personal attacks all the damn time. If you really think I am such a dumbass, then why in the hell don't you put me on ignore?

[OklahomaTuba]

dear 1tc, since at post 47 he still hadn't seen (for lack of looking/reading/whatever) anything suggestion fox changed anything i am guessing he will tell you how you hate freedom rather than respond to your question.

Ironic that I actually do respond to the questions that I am asked. You should try it sometime.

[1stTimeCaller]

:rolleyes:

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Please see the other Olberman/O'Reilly thread for a more meaningful discussion of this important issue.

[Hatfield]

Ironic that I actually do respond to the questions that I am asked. You should try it sometime.

wow.

[walkoffsooner]

Are you hiring?
Me to me to

[OklahomaTuba]

wow.
I know, asking you to answer tough questions in a straight forward manner on a regular basis.

wow indeed.

[1stTimeCaller]

Tuba, read post #7. Then I'll let you show me the post # where you answered the question.

Then we'll count how many posts you made in between them.

[mdklatt]

Ahh, so because I didn't type those exact words, it must mean that I think Fox "supposedly" changing a transcript is OK.

Talk about putting words in ones mouth.



Dude, you do this ALL THE ****ING TIME!!!!

[NormanPride]

hahahaha! This thread is hilarious! Tuba, you totally fell for this trap.

[OklahomaTuba]

Dude, you do this ALL THE ****ING TIME!!!!
Yes, I do, because its a response to you doing it to me ALL THE ****ING TIME!!!

[Hatfield]

tuba is as tuba does there was no trap.

and what question have i not answered?

[OklahomaTuba]

hahahaha! This thread is hilarious! Tuba, you totally fell for this trap.
Which trap is that?

[1stTimeCaller]

neener neener boo boo

[Fugue]

hahahaha! This thread is hilarious! Tuba, you totally fell for this trap.

is there a trap that might be available for this thread? :D

[1stTimeCaller]

Ya'll leave Tuba alone. he's working on his gazintas trying to figure out where he responded to Hatfield's question that was posed in post #7.

[1stTimeCaller]

HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh man, that was some good stuff. You just can't make up stuff like that.

[NormanPride]

Which trap is that?

Look, a lot of your (and others, to be fair) arguments don't attack the subject, but rather relating subjects. i.e. Instead of discussing O'Reilly making a mistake and being a dick about it, you talk about how Olbermann is also a dick. It's a valid tactic, but it has to be backed with a solid argument on the original topic.

This thread was started about one of your boys messing up, and then never admitting his mistake. Since I've seen you admit being wrong about twice, it was perfect Tubanip because his position is essentially indefensible. The guy screwed up, and there really shouldn't be much of a discussion on it. Arguing at all is, in essence, assuring a losing battle.

[Hatfield]

what happened to your post where you quoted post 6 and acted like it was post 7 tuba?

[OklahomaTuba]

Ya'll leave Tuba alone. he's working on his gazintas trying to figure out where he responded to Hatfield's question that was posed in post #7.



Somethings are mistakes and stupid, like this is. What the other media has done is MUCH more damning.

It was down the page, and I quoted another person, but its the same damn thing I said this whole thread.

[critical_phil]

i really don't intend to read this thread, i just wanted to add that Bill O'Reilly is a giant ******turd x 50.

[Octavian]

i really don't intend to read this thread, i just wanted to add that Bill O'Reilly is a giant ******turd x 50.

beat me to it.

Rush is brilliant though.

[1stTimeCaller]

It was down the page, and I quoted another person, but its the same damn thing I said this whole thread.

really? Where did YOU say it?

[OklahomaTuba]

HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh man, that was some good stuff. You just can't make up stuff like that.
Like what, deleting posts??

[Hatfield]

we know at post 47 he had seen no indication the question posed in post 7 even happened....durka durka

[1stTimeCaller]

you were trying to make me look like a Tuba but you copied post #6 or #8 and said something about 'I don't see a question blah blah blah...'

[mdklatt]

Like what, deleting posts??

If it's good enough for Fox News....


(What happened?)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

beat me to it.

Rush is brilliant though.as if you have any way of knowing.

[mdklatt]

...

Yay! The gang's all here.

[OklahomaTuba]

Sorry, I keep trying to respond to the tuba-jihad but sf.com keeps timing out when I hit the reply button. ARGH!!!

[1stTimeCaller]

It was down the page, and I quoted another person, but its the same damn thing I said this whole thread.

your first, thread's 6th

Olbermann is the last person that should be calling people out for getting their "facts" straight.

My favorite Olbermann moment of the last few weeks was calling Michelle Malkin to worse person on earth for the day for showing a groups phone number, on the very same day some jihadists decided to blowup a cafe full of jews.

http://newsbusters.org/node/4948

your 2nd, thread's 8th

And perhaps O'Reilly was confused by this?

Of course, mistakes happen in war, and hardly tarnishes our efforts in any way.


Quote:
Moreover, the 23, 24 and 25 December 1944 the city was bombed by the United States Army Air Forces despite the fact it was still under control of the U.S. troops. Approximately 200 civilians were killed. The number of casualties among the U.S. troops has never been revealed by the U.S. Department of War.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmedy

your 3rd, thread's 11th

What is your point of this thread then? To show that someone on TV might not in infallible? Holy ****, good jorb then.

your 4th, thread's 12th

Obviously you did not read what I posted, or did not comprehend it (surprise surprise). I said perhaps he was confused with the bombing incident.

your 5th, thread's 15th

No different, than say CBS actually showing FORGED memos trying to elect Kerry? Or how about Newsweak going with the fake koran flushing story @ gitmo? Or what about CNN and their crack reporter in Baghdad bascially rooting for the enemy during the invasion?

Somethings are mistakes and stupid, like this is. What the other media has done is MUCH more damning.

Like I said, Olbermann is the LAST person who should be throwing stones.

your 6th, thread's 17th

Hmm, so agreeing that he made a mistake = sticking up for him?

The world of Hat is a very strange place, indeed!

your 7th, thread's 21st

Another great Olbermann moment...Republicans stole the 2004 election!!!


Quote:
He never directly charged that Republicans stole the election or demanded that Karl Rove should be picked up for questioning by the U.N. But for 15 minutes on Monday, Olbermann pointed to a "small but blood-curdling group of reports of voting irregularities and possible fraud" from across the country, topped it with some vague partisan innuendo from Democrat Congressman John Conyers, and acted like he deserved a Peabody Award for Civic Journalism.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt.../s_271992.html

Nevermind that the only ones to be sent to jail (that I know of) for election fraud in 2004 have been dims.

And you've been saying exactly what during this thread?

[Hatfield]

damn you and your "facts" 1tc

[OklahomaTuba]

really? Where did YOU say it?
On page 1 is where I said it.

[NormanPride]

Somethings are mistakes and stupid, like this is. What the other media has done is MUCH more damning.

I think he's talking about that, which was in reference to either FOX covering up the mistake, or BO making it.

Still, for such resounding support of calling out FOX's mistake, he's sure hiding it. ;)

[1stTimeCaller]

what post #? I can't find it.

[mdklatt]

what post #? I can't find it.

Tuba #5/Thread #15 according to your list.

[Hatfield]

i am going to go take a grumpy...be right back.

[1stTimeCaller]

clear as mud hidden in there with the whining and the 3rd grade 'Well, he did it too excuses.'

[1stTimeCaller]

I'm gonna go get some work done. Someone else is gonna have to fact check for an hour or so.

[OklahomaTuba]

Look, a lot of your (and others, to be fair) arguments don't attack the subject, but rather relating subjects. i.e. Instead of discussing O'Reilly making a mistake and being a dick about it, you talk about how Olbermann is also a dick. It's a valid tactic, but it has to be backed with a solid argument on the original topic.

This thread was started about one of your boys messing up, and then never admitting his mistake. Since I've seen you admit being wrong about twice, it was perfect Tubanip because his position is essentially indefensible. The guy screwed up, and there really shouldn't be much of a discussion on it. Arguing at all is, in essence, assuring a losing battle.

Look, I never argued that O'Reilly didn't do this. I never said he was right nor did I ever say what fox news did was right. Why should I respond to a point that there is no sense in arguing?

This is people putting words in my mouth because thats what they do. They always do that, so thats how I respond to them. Amazing how they jump on me for doing that when indeed its me responding to them in the same manner.

What I offered was the fact that the person reporting this is someone who seems to have had trouble with facts on occasion as well. Olberman's name is on the topic of this thread in case you didn't notice.

[OklahomaTuba]

Nothing is as 3rd grade as personally attacking people.

Oh well, I guess either soonerfans or my network is messed up, cause its timing out my responses so I keep having to retype stuff. I will try again later.

[NormanPride]

Look, I never argued that O'Reilly didn't do this. I never said he was right nor did I ever say what fox news did was right. Why should I respond to a point that there is no sense in arguing?

This is people putting words in my mouth because thats what they do. They always do that, so thats how I respond to them. Amazing how they jump on me for doing that when indeed its me responding to them in the same manner.

What I offered was the fact that the person reporting this is someone who seems to have had trouble with facts on occasion as well. Olberman's name is on the topic of this thread in case you didn't notice.

Okay, I don't think you understand, because you just keep doing it. And you're wrong. Well, 1TC was putting words in your mouth in jest, but then he got hacked off. I think he's having a "heavy" day. ;)

No, what people were getting onto you about was the way you wouldn't talk about what actually happened. Instead all you were doing was talking about how bad everyone else was, which was completely beside the point. This thread wasn't about Olbermann being an idiot or CNN covering things up, it was about BO making stupid mistake and making it stupider, added to FOX revising history. Frankly, I agree with you that this is a nothing event and Olbermann made a mountain out of a molehill.

[NormanPride]

Nothing is as 3rd grade as personally attacking people.

Oh well, I guess either soonerfans or my network is messed up, cause its timing out my responses so I keep having to retype stuff. I will try again later.

Oh man, that's priceless.

[Hatfield]

when did i eat corn?

[OklahomaTuba]

No, what people were getting onto you about was the way you wouldn't talk about what actually happened. Instead all you were doing was talking about how bad everyone else was, which was completely beside the point.

I didn't talk about what actually happened huh?

I guess when I said something about O'Reilly being confused, or him making a mistake that was stupid, that wasn't talking about what actually happened?? Is that what you mean by "not talking about what happened"?

This is great, I have people putting words into my mouth, and people taking them out. Perhaps you should read my posts before telling me what I have and have not said? :rolleyes:

[Fugue]

I didn't talk about what actually happened huh?

I guess when I said something about O'Reilly being confused, or him making a mistake that was stupid, that wasn't talking about what actually happened?? Is that what you mean by "not talking about what happened"?

This is great, I have people putting words into my mouth, and people taking them out. Perhaps you should read my posts before telling me what I have and have not said? :rolleyes:

I agree with Tuba here. It can never be a good thing if someone is putting something in and out of your mouth.

[NormanPride]

I didn't talk about what actually happened huh?

I guess when I said something about O'Reilly being confused, or him making a mistake that was stupid, that wasn't talking about what actually happened?? Is that what you mean by "not talking about what happened"?

This is great, I have people putting words into my mouth, and people taking them out. Perhaps you should read my posts before telling me what I have and have not said? :rolleyes:

Okay, you quoted yourself at one point, and the only place you could find where you actually addressed the issue was one vague line. So literally, yes, you did address the issue. The vast majority of your posts before and after were about everyone else, and these are the posts I'm talking about.

Again, this is a valid debate tactic assuming your ground on the original issue is firm. In this case, however, it just makes you look like you're saying "yeah, well everyone else is worse". You always complain about having words put into your mouth; perhaps you should try debating in a way where people don't get the wrong idea from your posts.

[OklahomaTuba]

Okay, you quoted yourself at one point, and the only place you could find where you actually addressed the issue was one vague line. So literally, yes, you did address the issue. The vast majority of your posts before and after were about everyone else, and these are the posts I'm talking about.

So, it goes from not talking about the issue at all to talking about it vaguely?

Actually, I mentioned the mistake, or confusion or lack of facts by BO in about 5 of my posts.

But please, don't let those facts get in the way of a good argument though.

Again, here is a little tip, you might want to read what I have posted before telling me about it.

[1stTimeCaller]

your first, thread's 6th


your 2nd, thread's 8th


your 3rd, thread's 11th


your 4th, thread's 12th


your 5th, thread's 15th


your 6th, thread's 17th


your 7th, thread's 21st




but, but, but, but, but, but

[Scott D]

This thread needs some cowbell, and william favor telling us how Rush feels about this thread.

[Octavian]

and handbasket telling us how God created vBulletin so we could all witness the mele

[NormanPride]

So, it goes from not talking about the issue at all to talking about it vaguely?

Actually, I mentioned the mistake, or confusion or lack of facts by BO in about 5 of my posts.

But please, don't let those facts get in the way of a good argument though.

Again, here is a little tip, you might want to read what I have posted before telling me about it.

Yeah, you mentioned it on the way to say that everyone else was much worse. If your posts all had such amazing relevancy to the topic at hand, why didn't you defend yourself as such? When you posted your proof that you had, indeed, agreed that BO made a mistake, all you posted was that vague snippet.

If you can show where the majority of your posts addressed the issue at hand without using the roundabout way of saying everyone else is worse, I will freely admit my error. I really don't care what pundit spewed what idiocy when, I just think your participation in this thread has been amazingly funny.

[Veritas]

Can we not just all agree that both Olberman AND O'Reilly are loudmouth fockturds?

Yes?

Good.

[Scott D]

Can we not just all agree that both Olberman AND O'Reilly are loudmouth fockturds?

Yes?

Good.

no you no-account cornhole bastard! :D

[Veritas]

no you no-account cornhole bastard! :D
Yeah well so is your face. :eddie:

[NormanPride]

Can we not just all agree that both Olberman AND O'Reilly are loudmouth fockturds?

Yes?

Good.

I wasn't aware I didn't agree with that. Stop putting words in my mouth. :texan:

[Scott D]

Yeah well so is your face. :eddie:

my face is Eddie?

well damn son...my face needs to be suing someone for not getting those phat paychecks.

[SoonerBorn68]

Good Lord people what a major CF this has turned in to.

First O'Reilly wasn't completely wrong and Olberman was too quick to try to capture the moral high ground on his "mistake".

Let's do some background on this first:

There were 84 American prisoners executed near Malmedy during the Battle Of The Bulge. The soldiers were machined gunned while they were told take a break and were bayonetted & shot at close range to make sure they were dead. Hitler gave the order to the SS not to take prisoners since it would slow down their advance. A few soldiers survived and made it back to American lines. Their story so incented the troops that many vowed that no SS troops would be taken prisoner...and many troops made good on that. The bodies of the 84 were recovered about a month after the battle & after the war many of the SS troops that were there were charged with war crimes and sentenced to death. Unfortunately I believe only 3 of the original 50 or so were executed.

So, O'Reilly was talking about the Americans that retaliated against the SS for killing prisoners. Olberman goes into a tirade against something he basically knows nothing about. Same with O'Reilly. Both egos really irk me and I choose not to watch either.

The Japanese on Iwo Jima were killed in masse because of the Japanese approach of not taking prisoner and if they did, the harsh treatment that insued.

Now, after blabbing all that I finish with this:

O'Reilly comparing American Soldiers killing SS troops in retaliation is a far cry from killing unarmed civilians. He's an idiot for making that comparison.

[NormanPride]

Good lord, how the hell did I get involved in this? I hate politics. I just think the thread is funny! Out.

[OklahomaTuba]

Yeah, you mentioned it on the way to say that everyone else was much worse. If your posts all had such amazing relevancy to the topic at hand, why didn't you defend yourself as such? When you posted your proof that you had, indeed, agreed that BO made a mistake, all you posted was that vague snippet.

Because it was one of my first few postings on this thread? Maybe thats why I used it?

BTW, your backtracking is great.

I think this has been very humorous debate indeed.



If you can show where the majority of your posts addressed the issue at hand without using the roundabout way of saying everyone else is worse, I will freely admit my error. I really don't care what pundit spewed what idiocy when, I just think your participation in this thread has been amazingly funny.

Its good to see that you got a kick out my participation in this thread.

I also have been amused at the irony of this thread. Its amazing that even though you have gotten what I have posted wrong, you are still arguing your case that I didn't say something when I did.

Seems to be about the same thing people are getting on BO about.

[1stTimeCaller]

there we have it folks, Tuba is the winner of the innerweb argument contest!!!

give him his prize.

[OklahomaTuba]

Good Lord people what a major CF this has turned in to.

First O'Reilly wasn't completely wrong and Olberman was too quick to try to capture the moral high ground on his "mistake".

Let's do some background on this first:

There were 84 American prisoners executed near Malmedy during the Battle Of The Bulge. The soldiers were machined gunned while they were told take a break and were bayonetted & shot at close range to make sure they were dead. Hitler gave the order to the SS not to take prisoners since it would slow down their advance. A few soldiers survived and made it back to American lines. Their story so incented the troops that many vowed that no SS troops would be taken prisoner...and many troops made good on that. The bodies of the 84 were recovered about a month after the battle & after the war many of the SS troops that were there were charged with war crimes and sentenced to death. Unfortunately I believe only 3 of the original 50 or so were executed.

So, O'Reilly was talking about the Americans that retaliated against the SS for killing prisoners. Olberman goes into a tirade against something he basically knows nothing about. Same with O'Reilly. Both egos really irk me and I choose not to watch either.

The Japanese on Iwo Jima were killed in masse because of the Japanese approach of not taking prisoner and if they did, the harsh treatment that insued.

Now, after blabbing all that I finish with this:

O'Reilly comparing American Soldiers killing SS troops in retaliation is a far cry from killing unarmed civilians. He's an idiot for making that comparison.

BUT THATS NOT WHAT KEITH OLBERMANN SAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tear Down This Wall]

Are you hiring?

Eventually. We've got one lady who is very old, but won't retire. It's because her family is worthless and lazy, everyone from "disability retired" husband to grandchildren mooch off of her paycheck. We can't just run her off.

But, when the good Lord takes her home, there'll be an opening.

[Mjcpr]

Eventually. We've got one lady who is very old, but won't retire. It's because her family is worthless and lazy, everyone from "disability retired" husband to grandchildren mooch off of her paycheck. We can't just run her off.

But, when the good Lord takes her home, there'll be an opening.

What an outrage!! They won't even pick her up from work?

Sonsabitches.

[Tear Down This Wall]

No. They won't. But, they come up here from time to time to get money from her. It's pathetic. The woman's been working since she was 18 and she'll be 70 this year. For 52 years, her family has been pinching her on payday...and everyday in between as far as I can tell.

It's sick. The grandson will bring his little step daughter in with him, to avoid any conflict I suppose. That family will implode when she dies. And, believe me, Jesus has put many stars in this woman's crown.

[KaiserSooner]

a false patriot who would rather be loud than right.


This pretty much sums up Bill O'Reilly.

[lefty]

To put BOR in perspective, he makes Rush Limbaugh look moderate and credible.

[SoonerBorn68]

BUT THATS NOT WHAT KEITH OLBERMANN SAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

...and after watching Olberman a second time I heard and saw Keith rail O'Reilly twice about getting his facts wrong. Keith is overlooking the fact that American forces did kill SS troops after they had surrendered and is trying to make O'Reilly look like he is defending Nazis. I say the American soldiers did what they felt was necessary...kill fanatical German troops that had regard for the Geneva Convention. Either way it's a :chicken: measuring contest. It seems that both sides are worried more about ratings than history.

I defend neither camp. History is history.

[Vaevictis]

The Japanese on Iwo Jima were killed in masse because of the Japanese approach of not taking prisoner and if they did, the harsh treatment that insued.


Do you have a citation for this? Not to nitpick, I just want to know. The way I always hear it is that it had way more to do with the fact that the typical Japanese soldier just wouldn't surrender.

(Obviously, there were some, but most of those that surrendered would be expected to commit seppuku once they got home, so better to die with honor than with dishonor.)

[SoonerBorn68]

I'm sure I could up with several websites to verify my view, but I've been a student of WWII, especially the Pacific Theater for years & of all the vets I've talked to all of them have told me that they didn't take Japanese prisoners because they coudn't be trusted not to try to kill Americans after they were captured and that they had heard about the Bataan death march and were exacting some revenge on the treatment of their fellow servicemen. My great uncle was a SeaBee who fought from Guadacanal to Okinawa & he would tell stories of finding executed Americans during and after several of the battles. He said that this is one of the reasons that Americans took so few Japanese prisoners. He said they would fight hard to the end but the Marines would kill them instead letting them surrender.

[Jerk]

...and after watching Olberman a second time I heard and saw Keith rail O'Reilly twice about getting his facts wrong. Keith is overlooking the fact that American forces did kill SS troops after they had surrendered and is trying to make O'Reilly look like he is defending Nazis. I say the American soldiers did what they felt was necessary...kill fanatical German troops that had regard for the Geneva Convention. Either way it's a :chicken: measuring contest. It seems that both sides are worried more about ratings than history.

I defend neither camp. History is history.

I think there is more to it than that. I think one side is trying to say that "We're bad people, now, but we haven't always been, especially when people like FDR are President" and the other side is saying "You know what? Sh** happens in war. It's bad, but look, it has always happened"

There are certain ideological elements in this country who are counting on us to be defeated in Iraq- for their political gain here at home, and if we become the 'bad guys' in the sandbox, it makes it that much easier to turn public opinion against Iraqi Freedom, get the troops home, lose the war - and thus 'conservatism' in America is destroyed. They'd love to see it, because they believe that the ends justifies the means. They won't admit it, but that's the truth.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I think there is more to it than that. I think one side is trying to say that "We're bad people, now, but we haven't always been, especially when people like FDR are President" and the other side is saying "You know what? Sh** happens in war. It's bad, but look, it has always happened"

There are certain ideological elements in this country who are counting on us to be defeated in Iraq- for their political gain here at home, and if we become the 'bad guys' in the sandbox, it makes it that much easier to turn public opinion against Iraqi Freedom, get the troops home, lose the war - and thus 'conservatism' in America is destroyed. They'd love to see it, because they believe that the ends justifies the means. They won't admit it, but that's the truth.Surely, you didn't think of these thoughts all by yourself...wait, you are a Limbaugh ditto-head! AHA, gotcha. No way you could have possibly come up with those thoughts on your own. Why, a mind-numbed devotee such as yourself would be incapable of expressing such ideas, since it would be nearly impossible to draw such conclusions about the national political environment without professional commentator help, no?