Picture of Bill O'Reilly complaining about non-experts bloviating on TV

Actually I was thinking of Stephen Colbert’s version where the card over his shoulder frequently mocked or twisted whatever he was saying while he pretended to be oblivious.


Re: Elizabeth Warren’s quote. Even she has forgotten the fact that the US was founded on practically unspoiled land that was incredibly rich in resources, ready to be plundered. Sure it took work and foresight and risk to get at it, but some people got incredibly rich by then basically sitting on their asses, watching other people get paid shit to get those resources to market. And they think they’re special because they the planet is handing them gold on a plate.

They should be airlifted to a desert and try to make a fortune from sand.


Well, often on land that was already cleared, prepared, and in some cases planted before the locals suddenly decided to go away. But your point is not wrong.


touche! adjusted to correct the recipe (d’oh!)
what can I say I just love Cheery more than Apple pie

by “decided to go away” you mean “killed and the rest forced to leave”?


Stephen Colbert lifted that segment from O’Reilly, not the other way around. The Colbert Report itself was a satire of O’Reilly’s show.


I thought an essay on the reasons for the decision and the various meanings of “away” would be superfluous. Perhaps I misjudged.


It was the implied choice that brought up the question.

Well, the Colombian exchange we engaged in inadvertently included diseases that also did a number on their populations before we even started our intentional genocide.

1 Like

Don’t like the guy, don’t agree with his stance on many topics, certainly don’t like some of the bullying he does, and he damages his society every time he lets his prejudices do his thinking for him, while on his soap box. However. Give the devil his due. He is quick enough to admit that something is wrong when presented with proof. Not always of course, but often enough that I have seen it as part of his native character.
People probably don’t recall this about him, because usually he just says “Ok” when he does it and immediately launches another attack on his target, at some other angle. So it gets lost in the storm of verbiage

Most people we see in the similar situation never even give that much when faced with facts.

(Attribution: Fark.com, from a “Photoshop this” competition, asking posters for satirical screencaps showing what fox news might have aired if they’d been around during older historical events - poster unknown, probably posted in 2003)


Meh, he’s just adopting in such infrequent moments a standard Fox News tactic: seeming to be Fair and Balanced by acknowledging a point or two made by the other side. He’s always functioning as a mendaciously opportunistic ignorer of any truth that doesn’t suit him and his fearful, privileged viewers.


Oh, I didn’t say he was on the side of the angels, and certainly he uses any underhand ploy when it suits him. To say he does so “always” is not much more than hyperbole, though.

Whatever. I simply see no reason to give this pustulant greedhead credit for anything even a bit positive.


Yes. Please forgive my gently pointing out the corollary to your assertion.
This is a common human fault, one that both sides of the US political spectrum have raised to an art form.
Why it is certainly a fault, is it makes constructive political debate impossible, because neither side grants their opponent credit for anything. As we have just seen played out.

If neither side considers the others actions good, ever, what reason would anyone have for compromise, ever?.

1 Like

Cheery Bie, then.

I’d thank you to stop talking about Bill O’Really like he’s some sort of fair-minded debate opponent. He’s an entertainer, saying what it takes to keep his audience. So shoo fly, stop bothering me.


Insulting entertainers everywhere. He’s a propagandist, a paid lair. Nothing more.


What’s with the goiter?