ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 1 Users Online   
   
                 10/25/2014 06:15 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you worried about getting Ebola?
  Latest Events
10/25/2014 05:55 AM
captainJane receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'US/Palestinian Citizen Shoot Dead By Israeli Troops '
10/25/2014 01:24 AM
dolcevita receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Biden´s Son Kicked Out of Navy for Cocaine'
10/25/2014 01:15 AM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Paralyzed Man Walks Again After Revolutionary Cell Transplant'
10/25/2014 01:04 AM
captainJane receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'US/Palestinian Citizen Shoot Dead By Israeli Troops '
10/25/2014 12:26 AM
dolcevita receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'California Prisons End Race-Based Lockdowns'
10/25/2014 12:26 AM
dolcevita receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'N.J. Man Arrested for Selling "Ebola" Heroin'
10/25/2014 12:25 AM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Toys ´R Us Stops Selling Controversial "Breaking Bad" Action Figures'
10/25/2014 12:25 AM
captainJane receives 20 Points for Comment about 'Toys ´R Us Stops Selling Controversial "Breaking Bad" Action Figures'
10/25/2014 12:23 AM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Four Dead Babies Found in Winnipeg Storage Locker'
10/25/2014 12:23 AM
captainJane receives 20 Points for Comment about 'N.J. Man Arrested for Selling "Ebola" Heroin'
  2.920 Visits   3 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
09/22/2006 07:57 PM ID: 57145 Permalink   

T-Warrior: Bill O'Reilly's New Nickname

 

Bill O'Reilly has started to call himself the "T-Warrior" or traditional warrior. After being touted as the loudest voice in the media by 20/20, Bill said that the traditionalists are out numbered. To Bill its been this way since Walter Cronkite.

O'Reilly believes that if there were no media then there would be no ongoing debates on gay marriage or the Pledge of Allegiance. Bill says that they created these controversies and most Americans are overwhelmingly against gay marriage.

Bill charged himself with exposing these problems. He also stated that "I vote all over the map" but is sorry for the current situation of President Bush. "Bush found himself in a position that nobody can anticipate."

 
  Source: abcnews.go.com  
    WebReporter: xloner12 Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  75 Comments
  
  T-Warrior?  
 
LMFAO!!!!!!
 
  by: StarShadow     09/22/2006 08:07 PM     
  Suprised  
 
Im really facinated by the last comment I posted there. How does one say Bush found himself in a position that nobody can anticipate?
 
  by: xloner12     09/22/2006 08:08 PM     
  @X  
 
That depends really...it could mean that he expected everyone in the country to fall into line, and that he never expected to have the amazingly low approval rate that he currently has..
 
  by: StarShadow     09/22/2006 08:13 PM     
  in 2000  
 
Would you of anticipated that terrorists would of knocked 2 of new yorks buildings down?

 
  by: digital_darkness   09/22/2006 08:13 PM     
  @xloner12  
 
Maybe its to do with the fact that nobody actually expected Bush to get re-elected last time :D
 
  by: Flashby     09/22/2006 08:15 PM     
  True  
 
@Flashby very true

@All your all pretty much right, I still think O'Reilly's an Idiot in my opion.
 
  by: xloner12     09/22/2006 08:17 PM     
  @X  
 
"@All your all pretty much right, I still think O'Reilly's an Idiot in my opion."

No disagreement here!
 
  by: StarShadow     09/22/2006 08:19 PM     
  Heh  
 
There are a lot of names that come to my mind for this garbage, but "T-Warrior" isn't one of them.
 
  by: lurker     09/22/2006 08:27 PM     
  I hate to agree with him...  
 
""When I am dead, my tombstone will read, 'He finally stopped talking,'" he said."

Here, here!

Boy, this must really be a great week for O'Reilly's ego. All this attention - he gets to talk about how persecuted he is, how much more aware and informed he is, and all around just how damn important Bill O'Reilly is. For an egomaniac of his calliber, Christmas has come early!
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     09/22/2006 08:42 PM     
  @digital_darkness  
 
Actually they knocked down like 4 or 5 buildings. I think it was 4 buildings though. Tower 6 and the the infamous tower 7 collapsed in an act of solidarity with their bigger brothers!

@lurker - Yeah I was thinking the same thing. Most names I can think of for him would probably be considered bad language by most peoples standards.
 
  by: slavefortheman     09/22/2006 08:45 PM     
  Tradional warrior  
 
Which time period? The middle ages?

WTC 1 and 2 collapsed as well as 7 but all the rest didn't collapse at all despite enourmous fires and shorter distance from 1 and 2.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/...
 
  by: Kaleid   09/22/2006 09:53 PM     
  .  
 
Witness the last time someone called themselves a "prayer warrior" and "bible warrior":

http://youtube.com/...
 
  by: LafinJack   09/22/2006 10:31 PM     
  @Kaleid  
 
Actually tower 6 did infact collapse as well. Actually it looks like it blew up considering there was a huge crater where the building was standing at. I had never even heard of WTC 6 collapsing until just a few months ago myself.
 
  by: slavefortheman     09/22/2006 10:43 PM     
  @slavesman  
 
Thx for that info, I haven't really read as much as I should on the matter...or I've simply forgotten.
 
  by: Kaleid   09/22/2006 10:46 PM     
  Without O'Reilly  
 
We wouldent have halarious programs like The Colbert Report constantly making fun of o'rilley. Bill finds him self so important he claims that a FBI agent told him hes a top target by terrorist lmao.
 
  by: steme   09/22/2006 11:17 PM     
  LOL  
 
"Bush found himself in a position that nobody can anticipate."

I remember watching the presidential debates back in 2000 (when I first turned of age to vote) and thought; "There's no need to vote because there is absolutely no way Gore could lose, Bush only promises that he will have a plan, Gore already has one." Surprise, Surprise.
 
  by: banshee9898     09/23/2006 01:40 AM     
  Hmm...*ahem*  
 
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
</raving laughter>
 
  by: fballer23   09/23/2006 01:42 AM     
  On tonight's Megatron Show  
 
T-Warrior
The Governator
The Decider

Are they like, Deceptacons or something?
 
  by: redstain   09/23/2006 01:50 AM     
  @red  
 
LMAO!!
 
  by: StarShadow     09/23/2006 02:56 AM     
  ...  
 
Flashby: He wasn't re-elected, he was appointed the presidency by a court the first time.

steme: Loofa boy didn't even realize for a long time that Colbert's show was lampooning him.
 
  by: caution2     09/23/2006 05:47 AM     
  what's wrong with the one his parents gave him?  
 
i think it's like, you know, compensate for..
<points downwards>

=====================

In the daytime, swaggering, overbearing, bullying commentator with an agenda for neo-conservatism.
At the weekends - in the leather bars - he wears. They have grown to fear and respect the GimpMask known as 'T-Warrior'.

I name like that sounds like he escaped from a MadMax movie.
 
  by: redstain   09/23/2006 09:54 AM     
  Are you guys serious?  
 
Bill O'Reilly has the highest rated (and most watched) news show. I find that the people that don't like him are the liberal lefties. And who cares if they don't like him? Its not like they watch TV anyways -- they're out hugging trees and saving roaches from extinction :P

Watch the show... then form an opinion. Bill rules.
 
  by: carnold     09/23/2006 02:31 PM     
  Bill has no clue on what is going on  
 
or he just playes dumb to fool the ignorant masses (neocon straussian ways) or he's a damned idiot or a combination of all those.

"Daily Show" viewers are 78 percent more likely than the average adult to have four or more years of college education, while O'Reilly's audience is only 24 percent more likely to have that much schooling.

Plus, the network noted, "Daily Show" viewers are 26 percent more likely to have a household income more than $100,000, while O'Reilly's audience is only 11 percent more likely to make that much money."

http://www.cnn.com/...
________________
Fox wORST when it comes to having viewers with accurate information about Iraq:

http://www.heartheissues.com/...
 
  by: Kaleid   09/23/2006 02:42 PM     
  Nice link  
 
I read you link, Kaleid.
I only wonder, where do they get this info? I don't remember anyone asking me any questions of my education (MBA) or income (passed the 6-figure mark over 5 years ago).

Do I need to sign up for such a poll??
 
  by: carnold     09/23/2006 02:56 PM     
  @ carnold  
 
I have the original pdf on my harddrive somewhere, but I don't have the energy to search for it now. It explains how the poll was made. People didn't merely answer the questions on CNN's page.

But what you need to know is that the neocons (and often their supporters, unknowingly or knowingly) don't think very highly of the population. They think people are stupid and won't ever figure out what is going on.

Jeez, the whole agenda is on their webpage but still people have very little knowledge.
 
  by: Kaleid   09/23/2006 03:08 PM     
  Hi carnold  
 
I enjoy watching The O'reilly Factor for entertainment purposes. I respect his opinions, but feel that he bases many of them off of far too few facts.

He has been noted for making things up when he's on the losing side of an argument too as can be seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/...

I see nothing wrong with watching Bill for entertainment purposes, but in my opinion if we're looking for definitive information for educational purposes we should probably look elsewhere.
 
  by: banshee9898     09/23/2006 05:18 PM     
  I call him T-baggie  
 
sounds more accurate
 
  by: hotrock11     09/23/2006 07:55 PM     
  Just think...  
 
the horrible spawn that would result if Bill "T-Warrior" O'Reilly and Ann "The Man" Coulter were to breed. It's sickening. It would be the most sure of itself, fact-fabricating, famous for no reason creature alive. Wait that can't happen. There's no female in that equation.
 
  by: erasedgod   09/23/2006 08:22 PM     
  erasedgod  
 
If O'Reilly and Coulter bred and had offspring I bet it would make a good pet for someone.
 
  by: John E Angel     09/23/2006 09:08 PM     
  @carnold  
 
"Bill O'Reilly has the highest rated (and most watched) news show."

Amongst a population which voted in greater numbers for the next American Idol than their president. Whoopee!

It's an op/ed show, nothing more. If you rely on his show for news, you've got problems. Case in point - last year's "War on Christmas" debacle, which was complete sensationalized hooey.

"I find that the people that don't like him are the liberal lefties."

Spoken like a true Kool-aid drinker. Remember, folks, Bill O'Reilly a A) persecuted, B) moderate, and C) conservative. In reality he is as persecuted as a Christian in the Bible Belt, about as moderate and only puts the conservative in NEOconservative.

"Watch the show... then form an opinion. Bill rules."

U-rah rah...please.

I've listened to his show off and on for the last 8 years. Bill O'Reilly is now a cog in the conservative media machine, nothing more; the populist alternative to Limbaugh and Hannity with as much credibility. That is quite a shame, because I once found him to be one of the better moderates out there. Now it's just ideological bullying on the "No, Spin Zone."
 
  by: momentofclarity     09/23/2006 09:20 PM     
  watch the show  
 
For those who don't see what Bill 'I-wanna-cool-name' O'Reilly's like.

http://www.youtube.com/...
http://www.youtube.com/...
http://www.youtube.com/...
http://www.youtube.com/...
http://www.youtube.com/...

He's basically a multitalented person; propagandist, shockjock, neo-con, hate-merchant. Watch him, and you'll quickly see which side of the fence you fall.

This is what he represents: http://www.outfoxed.org/... "3) O'Reilly at his best"
 
  by: redstain   09/24/2006 12:14 AM     
  @redstain  
 
He IS very disarming at first, behaving as a mild, impartial interviewer and attacking later. Every time I watch him, I am compelled to try to believe him at first, against my better judgement. By the end of his segments, though, I always find I've been reminded of why I dislike him. It's the simple intellectual dishonesty and his willingness to sell the damaged goods of his opinions seemingly without conscience.
 
  by: momentofclarity     09/24/2006 03:02 AM     
  @digital_darkness  
 
Didn't the government recieve warning?
 
  by: Kavok   09/24/2006 10:30 AM     
  To each their own...  
 
It was a given that anyone posting a supportive comment for this guy would be met with any-and-everything thrown at him from the Bill haters. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, I suppose.

Bill rules. Liberalists hate it. Tough terd for them.

:P

 
  by: carnold     09/24/2006 10:43 AM     
  @carnold  
 
Bill, is that you?
 
  by: momentofclarity     09/24/2006 10:16 PM     
  A supportive comment..  
 
Ok, he has a personality..

Wouldn't hate him if he weren't so full of s-it.

The first episode I was watching the Colbert report I thought for a few minutes that he was serious, then I realized he's just making fun of O'Reilly and it became fun, sometimes hilarious. This O'Really guy wouldn't pass many logic tests..
 
  by: Kaleid   09/24/2006 10:47 PM     
  Bill's  
 
pure entertainment just as a local sports commentator doing the play-by-play for his hometown team is entertainment. It's for the fans. Of course there is going to be bias involved. Objectivity in thought is rarely existent in such business.

From what I can observe, what Bill says he believes; no matter if it's true or not. That's why I find him so entertaining. I agree with his opinions some of the time and will always get a good laugh from his inherent stubbornness when shown to be incorrect.

It seems to me that everyone who agrees with Bill's opinions is immediately admired and will much of the time receive a "No Spin Zone" hat courtesy of Bill. I notice that everyone who does not agree with is opinions are usually considered wrong and can sometimes anger Bill. Unfortunately, these people don't receive hats.

To me Bill is your average everyday US citizen, but one with a talk show. Just like the average US Citizen, he's hard pressed to change his opinions about his country. Such people are known throughout history to be fools; we cannot learn anything new with this mindset (because it is thought that we already know). I will catch myself doing this at times and really find nothing wrong with it (besides being the ignorant thing to do).

As was known by the Pharaoh Akhenaton 13 centuries before Christ, for you Bill; "The wise man doubteth often, and changeth his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubteth not; he knoweth all things but his own ignorance.”
 
  by: banshee9898     09/25/2006 12:15 AM     
  carnold's hero  
 
"Watch the show... then form an opinion. Bill rules."

http://www.youtube.com/...
 
  by: ManilaRyce     09/25/2006 06:48 AM     
  @Manilla and other posted clips  
 
I also happen to think Dan Rather was an excellent reporter. After many decades as a reporter, he's had a pretty good track record.

His opponents would lead you to a clip where he reported on the "Killian documents" and to a clip where he stood firm on the accuracy of the report. It was certainly a mistake on his end to do either (a mistake that cost him his job, no less.) The whole fiasco tarnished his image and the image of CBS. Nontheless, I still believe he was a fine reporter, despite that incident.

With that said, do you actually think that these "mini-clips" serve to prove a point outside the fact that Bill is human? And as human, we are all prone to mistakes, or get upset?

Like I said, watch his show and make your own opionion. You may become a fan... or not.
 
  by: carnold     09/25/2006 07:00 AM     
  CBS  
 
was almost equally as bad at informing their audience about Iraq as Fox so I wouldn't rate either of those channels highly.

Since the public believed in the nonsense Iraq WMD claim and now 77% believe Iran soon will have nukes...we'll, a lot of people are not doing their f-cking job.

A few documentaries I'd like to recommend about media:
Spin
Weapons of mass deception
Orwell rolls in his grave
Independent media in a time of war
Outfoxed

Many of these are available on sites such as video.google.com and youtube
 
  by: Kaleid   09/25/2006 07:35 AM     
  @carnold  
 
"With that said, do you actually think that these "mini-clips" serve to prove a point outside the fact that Bill is human? And as human, we are all prone to mistakes, or get upset?"

Just like the guy in accounting embezzling funds who started out small and needed more and more, the woman who has a string of affairs since her husband's job got more demanding 5 years into their marriage, or the surgeon who has been caught doctoring records for his failings with his patients. Any of these incidents occuring once, like Rather's, shows that we are human. When many can be strung together, the product is revealing of one's character. Unfortunately, these pundits rely on fans like you to not worry about what they said then, but rather what they are telling you now - which is often omission and revisionism.

"Like I said, watch his show and make your own opionion. You may become a fan... or not."

If that's all you do to form your opinion, that explains a lot. There's not exactly a meter accompanying the program to tell people how much fact and how much opinion O'Reilly is conveying at the time. I'd suggest watching these pundits when they appear off their own programs, in an environment where they do not have absolute control of reality.
 
  by: momentofclarity     09/25/2006 08:24 AM     
  @momentofclarity  
 
"Like I said, watch his show and make your own opionion. You may become a fan... or not.
If that's all you do to form your opinion, that explains a lot."

It sure does. It says that I believe people are intelligent enough to create their own opinions. They don't need the likes of you or me to tell them what they do or don't like. If they like it, great. If they don't like it, change the channel. Period. Yes, it's really that simple. Everyone is capable of creating and having an opinion without your help.

If I watch a movie and decide that I do or don't like it, then having watched it is enough for me to know that I do or don't like it. I don't need to take a poll to help me decide. I don't need to read a dozen movie reviews, afterwards, to help me make up my mind.

Set aside the positive and negative hype. Watch it. If you like it, great. If you don't, that's great too.
Contrary to momentofclarity's belief, that IS all you need to form your opinion.
 
  by: carnold     09/25/2006 09:17 AM     
  @carnold  
 
Just keep ignoring the elephant in the corner of the room. I suppose one can just watch O'Reilly's, or any pundit's, program because he'll come right out and tell you when he is being inconsistent or misrepresenting the facts, right? You may as well be arguing that to decide if one likes pro-werstling as a sport, one need only watch it.

You're entirely right about one thing - one source of information is all you need to form an opinion. To form an INFORMED opinion, however, one often needs several. Of course, you're entitled to whichever of these you've chosen.
 
  by: momentofclarity     09/25/2006 10:26 AM     
  @momentofclarity  
 
"...one source of information is all you need to form an opinion. To form an INFORMED opinion, however, one often needs several."

True. Had this topic been a portion of our discussions, I would have addressed it in much the same way you have. This is a point we seem to agree on.

I tend to like Bill. He's entertaining, his opinions are conservative (like mine) and he has a very no-nonsense approach about himself. This is why I enjoy watching his program. I never said that his program was the sole source for my news.
 
  by: carnold     09/25/2006 10:33 AM     
  @carnold  
 
so basically, you're admitting that you like o'reilly for the same reason a drunk likes a light post: for support, not illumination.

am i understanding your defense correctly that o'reilly is simply an entertainer? even so, shouldn't he be held responsibile for what comes out of his mouth? afterall, o'reilly himself blasts hollywood celebrities for their liberal opinions all the time.
 
  by: ManilaRyce     09/25/2006 11:22 AM     
  You may become a fan.......... or not.  
 
<smile>
 
  by: redstain   09/25/2006 11:37 AM     
  @Carnold  
 
You seem to be implying that anyone who doesn't like Bill O'Reilly hasn't watched his show. Highly presumptious of you!
 
  by: NuttyPrat     09/25/2006 11:43 AM     
  @ManilaRyce  
 
“…you like o'reilly for the same reason a drunk likes a light post: for support, not illumination.”
LOL! I like that. I’m going to have to use that, sometime. Heh! That’s cute!

But, to answer your question: No. I don’t need support for my opinions. From what I’ve see, I’m one of the very few conservatives on this site that dares to post opinion about anything. And I don’t ask or lean on anyone for support when I do it.

“am i understanding your defense correctly that o'reilly is simply an entertainer?”
Defense? I don’t need a “defense” for what I watch on television. Whether it’s O’Reilly, a bad sci-fi, a corny music video, or a porn flick, this is America – a land where censorship is frowned upon and where you don’t need to defend yourself for watching anything (unless it’s kiddy porn, but that’s getting way of topic).

Is O’Reilly entertaining? Sure he is. Is he informative? Most of the time, yes. Do I agree with everything he says? Most of the time, but not all the time; as with each opinioned

It’s really funny how most of you have turned my supportive comments for this guy into, “OMG!! CArnold is obsessed with O’Reilly! He’s an O’Reilly fanatic!”

I like Catherine Zeta Jones and Selma Hayek, too. That doesn’t mean I’m obsessed or a fanatic. (Although staring at them while drunkenly leaning on a lamp post would momentarily make you feel so. :P )
 
  by: carnold     09/25/2006 12:52 PM     
  @NuttyPrat  
 
"You seem to be implying that anyone who doesn't like Bill O'Reilly hasn't watched his show. Highly presumptious of you!"

It's highly presumptuous of you for thinking I was being presumptuous!

My quote: "Like I said, watch his show and make your own opinion. You may become a fan... or not."

If you’ve watched it and have formed an opinion, then this sentence does not apply to you. It would be moot and unnecessary to me to add, “…but if you’ve already seen it decided that you like it or don’t like it, then just disregard my last sentence, because you’re already are a fan or not a fan.”

C’mon NuttyPrat. Is such a disclaimer necessary to avoid being called “presumptuous”…?
 
  by: carnold     09/25/2006 01:04 PM     
  @carnold  
 
Actually, your original quote was "Watch the show... then form an opinion.", in response to criticism of Bill O'Reilly. This very much suggests that NuttyPrat was correct. You seem to be implying that anyone who doesn't like Bill O'Reilly hasn't watched his show.

You also suggested that anyone who doesn't watch the show doesn't watch television at all, because they are busy hugging trees. Quite a black-and-white worldview, that.
 
  by: Ec5618   09/25/2006 01:12 PM     
  @carnold  
 
The words 'obsessed' and 'fanatic' appear twice on this page. Both times, in your post above. You claim that others call you obsessed. Can you show a quote to back up feeling persecuted?
 
  by: Ec5618   09/25/2006 01:17 PM     
  @Carnold  
 
"Bill O'Reilly has the highest rated (and most watched) news show. I find that the people that don't like him are the liberal lefties. And who cares if they don't like him? Its not like they watch TV anyways -- they're out hugging trees and saving roaches from extinction :P

Watch the show... then form an opinion. Bill rules."

Your last sentence implies that those who don't like him, the ones you're addressing here, don't have an opinion because they haven't watched his show. Clearly, they do have an opinion, and your statement is presumptious because you assume they're off being compassionate and not watching TV and as such haven't watched his show.
 
  by: NuttyPrat     09/25/2006 01:26 PM     
  @Ec5618  
 
Nice to meet you, Ec5618.

"Actually, your original quote was "Watch the show... then form an opinion."

I was taking my latest quote from the time NuttyPrat had joind the discussion. In any event, you are correct. Please replace this quote with the one I provided in my post to him. The spirit of my message will remain intact.
 
  by: carnold     09/25/2006 01:52 PM     
  @Ec5618, again  
 
"The words 'obsessed' and 'fanatic' appear twice on this page. Both times, in your post above. You claim that others call you obsessed. Can you show a quote to back up feeling persecuted?"

"Read not word-for-word, but for the spirit for which it was intended."

Nice try, Ec5618. Don't try to bait me. :)
 
  by: carnold     09/25/2006 02:03 PM     
  @carnold  
 
Define 'bait'. I asked you which people, specifically, suggested that you are obsessed with Bill O'Reilly. If you cannot provide a quote, your point is moot.
 
  by: Ec5618   09/25/2006 02:05 PM     
  @NuttyPrat  
 
I've seen your posts and stories. You're not an idiot. So, why are you looking for several answers to the same question?

In my last post to you, I said:

"If you’ve watched it and have formed an opinion, then this sentence does not apply to you. It would be moot and unnecessary to me to add, “…but if you’ve already seen it decided that you like it or don’t like it, then just disregard my last sentence, because you’re already are a fan or not a fan.” "

How many more times do I need to say it......????
 
  by: carnold     09/25/2006 02:08 PM     
  @Ec5618  
 
Define "black-and-white"
Define "grey area"
Define "right"
Define "wrong"
Define "OMG!!!"
Define "I can't belive this person is incapable of defining this crap from what has already been posted!"

Ec5618, you REALLY do need to watch O'Reilly because you apparently have a hard time "defining" things on your own, much less making your mind up about them.
 
  by: carnold     09/25/2006 02:13 PM     
  @carnold  
 
Are you aware that your last post didn't even tangentially relate to the issue of obsession or fanaticism? I am not trying to bait you, I am trying to keep this discussion honest. You have asserted that you feel persecuted here, and that you feel people have suggested you are obsessed with Bill O'Reilly. While ample disparaging comments have been directed at you, none seem to suggest in the slightest that you are obsessed. If you cannot concede that point, I'm afraid you're simply not being honest.
 
  by: Ec5618   09/25/2006 02:19 PM     
  Oh!  
 
I just wanted to clarify the post I was talking about when I said you were presumptious.

But I'm glad neither of us think I'm an idiot. :-)
 
  by: NuttyPrat     09/25/2006 02:20 PM     
  @NuttyPrat  
 
Of course I don't think you're an idiot... you idiot!

:P

You're one of the many that I respect on this site. I just couldn't understand why you would ask me the same question so many differnet ways.
 
  by: carnold     09/25/2006 02:26 PM     
  @Ec5618  
 
Really? Uh-huh? Ya' don't say?!?! Well...

You'll find my answer seven (7) posts up from this one. Have a nice day!
 
  by: carnold     09/25/2006 02:30 PM     
  @carnold  
 
You said:
"It’s really funny how most of you have turned my supportive comments for this guy into, “OMG!! CArnold is obsessed with O’Reilly! He’s an O’Reilly fanatic!”"
Are you honestly suggesting that I should somehow read something into that text, other than that you feel some people have suggested you are obsessed with Bill O'Reilly?

What other interpretation is there, exactly?
 
  by: Ec5618   09/25/2006 02:34 PM     
  @Ec5618  
 
Certainly, your vernacular is not composed of such words seldomly verbalized in conventional conversation. So, why do you utilize such verbiage when posing your queries? Are you attempting to overcompensate or cloak an inferior education?
Why is it that you abberate from the topic at hand, only to finely focus upon the definition of my language?
Are you passively attempting to challenge me intellectually by way of persisting that I define and re-define my stance into a manner that would leave no premise for ambiguity? I only ask this because, taken into context, my responses could only be construed in said way by those purposely attempting to abstract such discourse. Are you attempting such? If not, take it for what it is – not for how you want to spin it.
 
  by: carnold     09/25/2006 05:40 PM     
  @carnold  
 
Assuming you understood my 'big words', I don't see a problem with my vernacular.

I originally responded to you because you seemed to make a claim that was not backed by evidence. Such claims are, in my experience, often the death of useful discourse, and an excellent touchstone of the intellectual honesty of debaters.

Again, you claimed that other posters had suggested that you were obsessed with Bill O'Reilly. I am not aware of any posts to that effect, and you have consistently failed to point one out. And you are finally suggesting that the spirit of your statement is entirely different from its literal interpretation, yet you have failed to explain that spirit.

Please concede that your post was misleading, at best.
 
  by: Ec5618   09/25/2006 06:48 PM     
  @Ec5618  
 
“…you claimed that other posters had suggested that you were obsessed with Bill O'Reilly. I am not aware of any posts to that effect…”
I suppose what is obvious to many, may not be obvious to few. This is going to be easy…

1) Use your mouse and scroll up this web-page until you find a title to a post that reads, “carnold’s hero”
2) Did you find it? Great. That’s good. Keep up the good work.
3) Do you recognize this as ManilaRyce’s claim that Bill O’Reilly is my hero? Great! Everyone else recognized this, too! You’re doing pretty good! [Pats you on the back]
4) If I truly deem someone as my hero, wouldn’t it be true that I would idolize that person? Yes? Golly, gee! You’re a sharp one!

Actually, you’re not. For someone that goes out of their way to use big words, it’s really confusing as to why you can’t understand the simple ones. Put your thesaurus away and put THESE words into your vernacular:
(All definitions are from Webster-Merriam. (http://www.m-w.com) )

Idolize - to worship as a god; to love or admire to excess

What’s that, you say? You now disagree that to see someone as my hero is not the same as idolizing that person? I happen to find the two synonymous, however, if you insist… How about “hero worship”? Does that sound better? Great!

Hero worship - foolish or excessive adulation for an individual

Put your thesaurus away… I’ll help you with the definition.

Adulation - excessive or slavish admiration or flattery

This concludes your vocabulary lesson for the day.

You laid the net that you were just trapped in. How will you try to manipulate yourself out of this…? Who knows. Who cares.
“…excellent touchstone of the intellectual honesty of debaters…” Your coyness did not serve you well, to this point. Write back when you’ve got something sensible to debate. I really don’t have the time or patience to draw pictures for those hunting for petty squabbles.
 
  by: carnold     09/25/2006 08:51 PM     
  @carnold  
 
Let's go back to where you neared an the heart of the matter:

"What’s that, you say? You now disagree that to see someone as my hero is not the same as idolizing that person? I happen to find the two synonymous..."

Then you're wrong. Having a hero needn't mean idolizing them, and idolizing needn't mean obsessing. I can cite someone as a hero, meaning they have been a positive role model for me. I can idolize them, meaning that I have held them in very high regard, possibly finding them exemplary in some aspect of life, even to excess. Both of these words can denote varying degrees of attention, but while holding someone as a hero can overlap with idolizing them, it rarely goes as to the exteme idolization can.

"however, if you insist… How about 'hero worship'? Does that sound better? Great!"

The term "hero worship" adds nothing to the debate. You're discussing the nature (specifically, the degree), of attention, which is characterized by the word "worship." The word "hero" only denotes the subject.

Essentially, you're using very muddy logic and slippery definitions to try to make ends meet in your arguments. Ironically, this is one such strategy used by pundits such as the topic subject. The flaw is that while one CAN say these terms mean these things, that does not make it true; and even if they CAN indeed mean these things, that does not mean the context actually warrants it. Bill may get the final word during his programs, but you are in an open forum and can be corrected. Similarly, you'll find that excessive bravado and condescension will not serve you as well here, because unlike O'Reilly, you cannot shout down or cut off your opposition.

Take a lesson, THAT is what is wrong with programming like O'Reilly's. He and his are dictators ruling their own realms of facts and ideas. Dictatorship is as bad here as in government because power corrupts, leading to dishonest governance as well as dishonset discourse.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     09/25/2006 11:33 PM     
  Wow  
 
Anyone notice how when two people start throwing punches there sometimes is an intermediary (that has nothing to do with the cause of the fight) that breaks up the fight?

Has anyone here ever been that intermediary before? I know that I have. If you have as well, what goes through your mind when you're this intermediary? For me, it's usually "This isn't worth fighting over, everyone needs to chill".

I see the same thing right here.
 
  by: banshee9898     09/26/2006 02:07 AM     
  @MomentOfClarity  
 
Ec5618?

Is this "I need my share of attention from CArnold Day", or something?

You're really going down the path of symantics, at this point. As I said, read not word-for-word, but by the nature for which it was written. But even a word-for-word inperpretation can be used, as I've successfully pointed out.

Thanks for your input but I really don't find this off-the-topic debate worth any further of my time. Have a good day!
 
  by: carnold     09/26/2006 08:35 AM     
  @carnold  
 
I don't see any "debate".

I see Ec5618 being very reasonable in his approach and you jumping down his through with smart arse remarks.

MoC had slightly less tolerance, but you seem to be on a loosing argument. (You also seem to be acting like Bill character from what i've seen of him. Not much I'll admit.)

There is nothing wrong with liking to watch his show or any show. But I wouldn't consider it good material from which to form an educated opinion.

Ah well, each to his own.
 
  by: jendres     09/26/2006 09:46 AM     
  bah spelling  
 
through = throat.

How the hell did I miss that one? How the hell did I even write that? I hate the small text boxes on this site. *grumble*
 
  by: jendres     09/26/2006 09:48 AM     
  @CArnold  
 
You know, I think I finally get your sarcasm. At first I assumed you were so utterly misinformed as to think that these convoluted arguments, redefined terms, omission of inconvenient points, and out of context misrepresentations were respectable debating tactics. I've seen you comment elsewhere, though, and you certainly must know better. Anyone with the intelligence you've shown elsewhere certainly must realize that such intellectual dishonesty is not debate but belligerant grandstanding, the spread of which shows why the Republican murder of the Fairness Doctrine makes them complicit in the death of intelligent political thought in the US.

I commend you on a very passable parody. I guess you had to lay it on pretty thick in the end.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     09/26/2006 08:33 PM     
  @MomentOfClarity  
 
Come back for more attention, did you? :)
 
  by: carnold     09/27/2006 10:10 AM     
  "Come back?"  
 
I never left the topic, you did, now seem to need the last word. I suggest actually addressing an ISSUE, if you must. Simply because you took your ball and went home does not mean discussion must cease. Like I said, O'Reilly's egotism will not serve you well here because this is not your forum - no hang ups or "shut ups." ;)
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     09/27/2006 07:22 PM     
  And.....  
 
we won't sick Fox security on you for having a liberal thought. LOL
 
  by: Lurker     09/27/2006 07:34 PM     
  ....  
 
LOL! I needed that, thanks Lurker :)
 
  by: StarShadow     09/27/2006 07:49 PM     
 
 
Copyright ©2014 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com