Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

pman68 · Jan 11, 2005, 08:42 AM

O'Reilly is such a smug SOB. Like HE isn't a celebrity. Anyway, I think Clooney got the better of him.

CNN

I particularly like this quote:

Then came the challenge:

"I'm booking the talent for the Tsunami event... and you, Mr. O'Reilly, are now officially invited to be a presenter... [at this point, not one of the people I've invited to donate their time has said 'No']... this way, You can personally follow up on our fund raising... this is your chance to put your considerable money where your considerable mouth is... show up... help raise money... and if we're doing something wrong, point it out."

"Either you ante up and help out AND be that watch dog that you feel we clearly need... or you simply stand on the sidelines and cast stones," he wrote."

strictlyplaid · Jan 11, 2005, 09:09 AM

I really, really hate O'Reilly. He seems to have caught that famous disease: can't make a point without being a total jerk about it. Both sides of the political aisle get it sometimes, although the right wing probably gets it more because their points are inherently more of the "tough love" variety.

It's no wonder we have no real debate in America, when clowns like O'Reilly represent the political discourse. But unlike Jon Stewart, I don't blame them -- there'd be no supply of O'Reilly's if there were no demand for it. If the Poli/War Lounge has taught us anything, it's that "The Factor" is an apt metaphor for most of the non-televised political discourse in this country at the moment.

Speaking of which, shouldn't this be in the Poli/War Lounge?

AB^2=BCxAC · Jan 11, 2005, 09:18 AM

two points to make:

1. luffa sponge
2. facts of life.

And that's why Clooney will perpetually win against O'Reilly.

pman68 · Jan 11, 2005, 09:29 AM

Maybe O'Reilly can raise money by becoming an official sponsor for a vibrator company, since he's so fond of them...

awaspaas · Jan 11, 2005, 09:41 AM

Falafel. Falafel. Falafel.

Millennium · Jan 11, 2005, 09:57 AM

Bill O'Reilly and Michael Moore are two sides of the same coin.

I used to compare Moore to Limbaugh, and although makes for a prettier picture (in a twisted sort of way), Limbaugh has one redeeming feature that these others lack: he's never pretended to be anything other than a pretentious, biased jerk. O'Reilly and Moore, on the other hand, regularly pretend to be "balanced" or "unbiased" or even "objective" and "spin-free" in an attempt to manipulate their viewers. This makes them far more dangerous, because far too many people fall for the act, and thus think they're getting all the facts when in fact they aren't.

Zimphire · Jan 11, 2005, 10:06 AM

Uh I am not fan of Oreaily, but a bunch of Hollywood jibberish is no smackdown.

saying comments he made last week on his program will lead to lower contributions in Saturday's celebrity-driven telethon.

:boohoo:

This is what Clooney is upset about

After the telethon for victims of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, O'Reilly complained on his program that not all the money pledged was making its way to victims.

"You may also remember that Clooney strenuously objected to 'The Factor' investigation that uncovered problems in distributing the 9/11 money, even though we proved our case and the Red Cross revamped its entire operation because of it," O'Reilly told viewers Thursday.

He said his program "will be watching to see if the money gets to the tsunami victims. If it does not, there will be trouble. And this time nobody can say they weren't warned."

Too bad.

strictlyplaid · Jan 11, 2005, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by Millennium:
Bill O'Reilly and Michael Moore are two sides of the same coin.

I used to compare Moore to Limbaugh, and although makes for a prettier picture (in a twisted sort of way)...

Yeah, when Moore shaved himself and put on a suit for Leno, he looked a bit like Limbaugh. But in spirit, he's much more like O'Reilly. I absolutely hated Fahrenheit 9/11 for that reason (and because, IMO, it took the spotlight off of Bush's real shortcomings to focus on (1) sight gags (2) some X-Files-inspired conspiracy theory about Osama and Bush being in league.) What a bunch of nonsense.

I didn't mind "Bowling for Columbine" as much though, because his argument in that movie was much more novel and interesting to me. (The evidence was still not really up to par, but you can go find that on your own if you want.)

AB^2=BCxAC · Jan 11, 2005, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Uh I am not fan of Oreaily, but a bunch of Hollywood jibberish is no smackdown.

Well, it's not like we'd ever elect an actor to do the job of a smart goverment... I mean imagine what kind of idiot-hell we'd live in if Hollywood actors got elected governor or even President!

Zimphire · Jan 11, 2005, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by AB^2=BCxAC:
Well, it's not like we'd ever elect an actor to do the job of a smart goverment... I mean imagine what kind of idiot-hell we'd live in if Hollywood actors got elected governor or even President!

I am not talking about anyone Hollywood. I am speaking about the pretentious self important ones.

If Clooney ever goes into politics, and actually LEARNS something about it, then my opinion of him may change.

He is the same as Oreily and Moore.

Just pointing out this was hardly a smack down.

dav · Jan 11, 2005, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
This is what Clooney is upset about

so you're a spokesman for clooney now, or are you being dishonest?

Zimphire · Jan 11, 2005, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by dav:
so you're a spokesman for clooney now, or are you being dishonest?

Did you even read the article before you knee-jerked?

Clooney himself said he was upset about it because he claimed it was making people question it, and not give money.

Hawkeye_a · Jan 11, 2005, 11:13 AM

*

xi_hyperon · Jan 11, 2005, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by pman68:
Maybe O'Reilly can raise money by becoming an official sponsor for a vibrator company, since he's so fond of them...

Maybe he can phone in his endorsement.

AB^2=BCxAC · Jan 11, 2005, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I am not talking about anyone Hollywood. I am speaking about the pretentious self important ones.

If Clooney ever goes into politics, and actually LEARNS something about it, then my opinion of him may change.

Scroll down into this list, and look a few people above Bill and Melinda Gates.

United Way Board of Directors

My understanding is that Clooney is likely more informed about charity and helping to advocate donations than O'Reilly.

dav · Jan 11, 2005, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Did you even read the article before you knee-jerked?

of course, but thanks for the insinuation.

Zimphire · Jan 11, 2005, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by dav:
of course,

Then why did you say what you did? Had you read it, you'd have seen I was spot on.

I usually find out when people in here act petty and spiteful, it usually makes them look foolish.

Hopefully you wont do it anymore.

dav · Jan 11, 2005, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Then why did you say what you did? Had you read it, you'd have seen I was spot on.
[/B]

no, your snippets show an unnecessary bias which i find absurd. you implying anyone is petty, absurd.

Zimphire · Jan 11, 2005, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by dav:
no, your snippets show an unnecessary bias which i find absurd.

#1, I said nothing that was untrue.
#2, others have shown unnecessary bias, and you have said nothing.

you implying anyone is petty, absurd.

No, not really. You are being petty. I said nothing that was untrue.

You came in a knee-jerked, and when I busted you for being a petty knee-jerker you found something else petty you wanted to complain about me.

Get a grip. This thread isn't about ME.

dav · Jan 11, 2005, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:

#1, I said nothing that was untrue.
#2, others have shown unnecessary bias, and you have said nothing.

No, not really. You are being petty. I said nothing that was untrue.

You came in a knee-jerked, and when I busted you for being a petty knee-jerker you found something else petty you wanted to complain about me.

read this again to yourself.

xi_hyperon · Jan 11, 2005, 04:10 PM

Yeah, two guys mouthed off to each other, they both got smacked down, blah blah blah.

Stop chattering and go check out all the new toys that came out today.

dav · Jan 11, 2005, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
Yeah, two guys mouthed off to each other, they both got smacked down, blah blah blah.

Stop chattering and go check out all the new toys that came out today.

yeah, ok, sorry zimph

[zips off to apple.com]

ReggieX · Jan 11, 2005, 08:31 PM

O'Reilly is a complete *********, but we all knew that already.

ReggieX · Jan 11, 2005, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by Millennium:
Limbaugh has one redeeming feature that these others lack: he's never pretended to be anything other than a pretentious, biased jerk.

Limbaugh always claimed to "tell it like it is," which is not what you're saying.

Either that or all his fanboys claimed this, I can't say I ever listened to more than a few minutes here and there.

olePigeon · Jan 11, 2005, 11:35 PM

I'd say Rush Limbaugh is more opposite Michael Moore. O'Reily's a dork too, but not as much of a dork as Moore or Limbaugh.

Jon Stewart owns all.

sideus · Jan 12, 2005, 12:07 AM

O'reilly is awesome. Clooney can go fornicate with an iron stick.

Buckaroo · Jan 12, 2005, 12:30 AM

Clooney is a moron.

Besides, dosen't this thread belong in the Political Forum?

Xeo · Jan 12, 2005, 12:46 AM

What's wrong with Clooney being upset over O'Reilly and his show lowering the donations given? Are you saying that's not true or that "too bad for Clooney that donations will be lowered." 'Cause I wouldn't say "too bad Clooney," I'd say "too bad victims." If celebrities can help raise a bunch of money, then who cares if they are self-important? In our society, Hollywood can have a lot of impact and if raising money for people who desperately need it can be done, then so be it.

I'm saying all this on the assumption that the funds really do go where they are supposed to. I'm assuming O'Reilly is full of ****, which is not a hard assumption to make.

:dragonflypro: · Jan 12, 2005, 01:26 AM

Originally posted by olePigeon:

Jon Stewart owns all.

As a comedian, maybe�

�but if you are getting your factual news from the man you have a pretty poison well there.

The notion just scares me.

T

Zimphire · Jan 12, 2005, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by olePigeon:
Jon Stewart owns all.

You me "Jon "Pretends he doesn't have an agenda but really is a left wing shill" Stewart?

Zimphire · Jan 12, 2005, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by Xeo:
What's wrong with Clooney being upset over O'Reilly and his show lowering the donations given? Are you saying that's not true or that "too bad for Clooney that donations will be lowered." 'Cause I wouldn't say "too bad Clooney," I'd say "too bad victims." If celebrities can help raise a bunch of money, then who cares if they are self-important? In our society, Hollywood can have a lot of impact and if raising money for people who desperately need it can be done, then so be it.

I'm saying all this on the assumption that the funds really do go where they are supposed to. I'm assuming O'Reilly is full of ****, which is not a hard assumption to make.

Yes assuming that ALL the funds went to the right place. But as it seems, it did not. This IS Hollywood.

AB^2=BCxAC · Jan 12, 2005, 02:29 PM

Ah, isn't it great demonizing charity? Social security is the big target this season, while even the UN food for oil initiative gets endless tirades and a mega investigation, but it's not likely you'll see the same questioning and posturing from the Right regarding any of their own finagling and swindling. Of which. There is. Tons.

It's not like we're at war in another country right now, or anything.

Bait and switch.

Zimphire · Jan 12, 2005, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by AB^2=BCxAC:
Ah, isn't it great demonizing charity? Social security is the big target this season, while even the UN food for oil initiative gets endless tirades and a mega investigation, but it's not likely you'll see the same questioning and posturing from the Right regarding any of their own finagling and swindling. Of which. There is. Tons.

It's not like we're at war in another country right now, or anything.

Bait and switch.

No

Timo · Jan 12, 2005, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
Maybe he can phone in his endorsement.

I lol'd.

dav · Jan 12, 2005, 03:26 PM

The Red Cross has credited O'Reilly with helping to craft a revised policy on the distribution of donations after the 9/11 attacks. But Clooney wrote in his note, "it was not the Red Cross but the United Way that sponsored that telethon ... an easy mistake to make ... if you're 3."

He added, "Contrary to what you claim, no one objected to you investigating where the funds were going, but we strenuously objected to you insinuating that it was a fraud [which is what you did] as we were still waiting for a list of names of the dead."

where has o'reilly "proved his case" against the united way to justify insinuating it was involved in a fraud? seems a shame that future united way telethons may be hampered by knee-jerk reactions.

jlemons · Jan 12, 2005, 03:52 PM

You all leave O'Reilly alone. Don't you know he is "Looking out for you". Now carry on if you wish to "opine", but make it "piffy".

GO BILL

hayesk · Jan 12, 2005, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You me "Jon "Pretends he doesn't have an agenda but really is a left wing shill" Stewart?

Nope, I think he meant Jon "host of the Daily Show" Stewart.

Or does criticism of a right wing government automatically mean you are a "left wing shill?"

Zimphire · Jan 12, 2005, 07:21 PM

Nope. He's a Left wing shill for other reasons.