| HOME - DICTATOR YOU - MULTIPLE CHOICE -> Bill O'Reilly sucks! | Start A New Topic | Reply |
| Post Info | TOPIC: Bill O'Reilly sucks! |
| Posted By: Joe Posted On: Dec 10, 2006 Views: 160 | Bill O'Reilly sucks! This guy is the epitome of narcissism, If I had to describe Bill O'Reilly in a phrase, it would be "sock-sniffer." You know the kind of guy who comes home from a long day of work, his feet have been sweating all day, his socks are ripe with the pungent aroma of stale milk and wet leather, and after he finally sits down and takes his socks off, but just before he throws them in the hamper, he takes a quick sniff to sample his odors. O'Reilly wouldn't be such a bad guy if he would quit crying for a few minutes, step back, re-evaluate his life, and realize that he's a giant blubbering vagina. In June of 2003, O'Reilly attacked the only form of media he was powerless in: the Internet. In his "Talking Points Memo" segment, he whined that "nearly everyday, there's something written on the Internet about me that's flat out untrue," continuing with his theory that "the reason these net people get away with all kinds of stuff is that they work for no one. They put stuff up with no restraints. This, of course, is dangerous..." Yeah, real dangerous Bill. Next thing you know, people will get the crazy idea that they have the right to express their opinions as they see fit. Who knows? Maybe this idea will catch on and they'll add it to the Constitution of the United States, giving it a catchy title like "freedom of speech." What do you think of that you sock-sniffing bog trotter? When Bill feels threatened enough, he goes after the people who say these "vile" things about him. For example, his much publicized tirade with political satirist Al Franken ended with FOX News lawyers being laughed out of court. No, Bill, the reason we "get away with all kinds of stuff," other than it being our irrevocable right to do so, is not because we don't work for anyone; it's because if the case against Al Franken taught you anything, you can't do anything about it! Here's the dilemma Bill O'Reilly faces every day: let the people who attack him on the Internet go, or talk back and give these people publicity. Al Franken's book probably would have never done so well had FOX not made a fuss about his satirical use of the phrase "FAIR AND BALANCED," and big blubbering Bill won't admit it. Everything about this guy is obsessive. He speaks with an obnoxious cadence and rhythm, careful to chant the same handful of phrases over and over again. His entire repertoire of insults range from the versatile "ideologue" (oh no, don't call me an advocate of a particular ideology, anything but that! Dumbass), to "demonizer," and "ridiculous." In fact, he repeats these phrases on his show, "The O'Reilly Factor," so many times, you could play a game of Bingo while tuned in. Bill O'Reilly gets a major chubby every time he says the phrase "fair and balanced." That's my theory anyway, otherwise he wouldn't say it in spite of the fact that FOX News' slogan is: "we report, you decide." I love that slogan, because it makes me feel empowered. They report, I DECIDE! Wow, it's almost as if I'm being reminded that I still have the capacity for critical thinking, but only insofar as I tune into their network for the delightful and not gruesome Gretta Van Susteren. Here's a quick question to the executives at FOX News (because I know you assholes will eventually read this): why do you keep calling yourselves "fair and balanced?" Shouldn't we DECIDE whether or not you're "fair" and/or "balanced"? Is it even possible to be fair and unbalanced? Just let it go, it's not witty, it's not clever. It's not even catchy. Let it go. During an interview with NPR's Terri Gross, Bill was quoted as saying: "don't take your ire out on my product because you don't like me." Hey Bill, isn't that the whole premise behind a BOYCOTT? Big blubbering Bill chose not to drink Pepsi when they signed rapper Ludacris to do commercials, yet he expects people to go out and buy his ****ty new book even if they don't like him (don't take my word for it being ****ty, check out what people are saying on Amazon). Speaking of his ****ty new book, there's a quote in it saying "in order to be truly successful you have to be brutally honest with yourself. Excuses and rationalizations have to be put aside. You must define your own life," continuing with the definition he's giving you for your life "[and] not let others do it for you." Wow, thanks Bill! You condescending son of a bitch. As if he wasn't already a giant self-collapsing vortex of hypocrisy, there are literally thousands of other examples I could cite of him "defining" people's lives. For example, regarding people who support Michael Jackson, he said "all Americans should remain on the sidelines and watch the process." Oh really? Does that include you, Bill? Or are broad sweeping generalizations about what "Americans should do" inapplicable to cranky, joyless blowhards? Since Bill O'Reilly is such a cry-baby bitch, I have decided to send him a bottle of Johnson & Johnson "no more tears" shampoo, along with a box of tampons to help with his constant PMS |
| Posted By: Glynnis O Posted On: Dec 10, 2006 Views: 156 | RE: Bill O'Reilly sucks! I couldn't agree more with you, man. O'Reilly is a dick. My dad's obsessed with him, and although my dad is an intelligent man, I can't see why he's want to tune into him. "The media is controlled by the left wing" |
| Posted By: Posted On: Dec 10, 2006 Views: 147 | RE: Bill O'Reilly sucks! If you are going to copy and paste someone you should (a) give credit where credit is due and name the author (Maddox) and (b) if you are going to try and rip someone else off, you probably shouldn't rip off one of the most popular sites on the internet. Someone is going to notice. Here is the original - http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=bill_oreilly |
| Posted By: O'Reilley sucks comments suck! Posted On: Dec 11, 2006 Views: 139 | RE: Bill O'Reilly sucks! That's way too many words to devote to someone that you don't like, complete waste of the AE alphabet. |
| Posted By: nate Posted On: Dec 11, 2006 Views: 130 | RE: Bill O'Reilly sucks! "you should give credit where credit is due and name the author" No, actually you don't. Just post whatever the fuck you want, this is a message board not a book |
| Posted By: Posted On: Dec 11, 2006 Views: 129 | RE: RE: Bill O'Reilly sucks! Maybe you need to learn to read also. That was all stolen from a website so they didn't do anything but copy and paste. As for the waste of alphabet, well you are a total jackass then. That is why Maddox is successful and neither of you will never amount to anything. |
| Posted By: Posted On: Dec 11, 2006 Views: 128 | RE: Bill O'Reilly sucks! Let me add a third person to the 'stupid jackasses that will never amount to a god damn thing' list. It doesn't matter if it was a book, a message board, the back of a napkin, or in the middle of your undoubtedly large police record. When you are so stupid that you can't think up something yourself to say, you give credit to the person that was able to actually create something by themselves. Nate next time you feel compelled to respond to a message, don't. You just sound like the plagiarizing ass that you are. |
| Posted By: weeze Posted On: Dec 11, 2006 Views: 125 | RE: Bill O'Reilly sucks! i don't think he believes his own bull**** he's just in it for the money! kudo! |
| Posted By: ish Posted On: Dec 11, 2006 Views: 123 | RE: Bill O'Reilly sucks! Maddox is cool, a little overrated, but very elegant. As far as taking from other people's works, should definitely give credit, otherwise it detracts from the value of their work. Even just a little post message amendment saying, "in the words of such and such" is warrented and takes little effort, while maintaining your respect for the creator, even though such respect is inherent within the spreading of their work. On the other hand, copyright laws are a cause of so much wasted time; people are very absorbed in what belongs to whom such that the possibility is sometimes overlooked that there may be intrinsic value to the sharing of perspective that human societies are capable of. By paying less attention to belonging, focus can be brought to the objective qualities of the work itself. I find that many feel this possessive line of reasoning to be the source of complaints when dealing with doctrinal ideology: an indivual or group focuses more on the "who" than the "what" and therefore the value of the "what" dissipates as squabble arises between groups of "team-players." Just remember not to become so absorbed in defending property that you remove from the purpose of communication: sharing of information. But then again, bloke couldn't just avoid this whole argument and say "Here's something I agree with!" Just because it's the internet doesn't mean that it's a damn free for all... poser. By the way, I copied all this from someone who has thought all this before. And I need to cite my sight... (I talk too much, scragglynag edumacation) |