Bogus "Lipstick on a pig" controversy

[quote name='sgs89']Boy, that is one mean, bitter man. I wonder what went wrong in his life to cause him to be so angry.

But, the point still stands -- he fits your definition of a hero, even if not your type of hero.[/quote]

O'Reilly doesn't stand up for what he believes in.

He's Mr. Family Values on TV and behind the scenes he's a married man with a family who is sexually harassing his co-workers. Now he's attacking John Edwards for adultery - isn't that good for a laugh! While we're at it, let's ask guest commentator Mark Foley to come in and talk about Larry Craig's sexual scandal.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I actually knew that, I just didn't think the crowd was ready to hear it. The peanut gallery usually equates such facts with conspiracy theories.[/QUOTE]

I know you know, it just had to be said.


O'Reilly doesn't stand up for what he believes in.

He's Mr. Family Values on TV and behind the scenes he's a married man with a family who is sexually harassing his co-workers. Now he's attacking John Edwards for adultery - isn't that good for a laugh! While we're at it, let's ask guest commentator Mark Foley to come in and talk about Larry Craig's sexual scandal.
Click to expand...

To be fair, Oreilly isn't running for public office and he got called out on his sham lifestyle. Edwards, sice he's dedicating his life and reputation to public service as a virtue, should be put to the same scrutiny regardless of who's doing the screwing.
 
^I think you know better than that.

Should Edwards be held to a high standard? Sure. Now that we know his political career is done, done, done, I can't help but wonder why Newt Gingrich never fell under that same level of scrutiny for his sexual escapades.

Why does the liberal media fail me like that, and then fail to gain the approval of you knuckleheads!?!?!

As for O'Reilly, it's not about them being equal. It's about one person who has done the deed taking the other to task. It's like Bill Bennett calling out a gambler, Larry Craig calling out anonymous gay sex solicitors, or Sarah Palin calling out parents of pregnant, unwed teens. Irrespective of equal, irrespective of standards, it's simply absurd, unprofessional, and classless to chastise another person for fuckups you personally have done.
 
O'Reilly does indeed stand up for what he believes in and is, in fact, rarely hypocritical. You can't use a show like the Factor as grounds for condemning the host. He doesn't have complete control of the show, he has to say/do what the viewers want.

Most of you guys bashing him don't watch him, I think. I'm a fairly long-time viewer and still remember the days when he had to cover celebrity gossip trash on The Factor and always made these veiled comments that were obviously contempt for having to cover such "stories"... he used to choose viewer mail that called him out on it, and in response he'd apologize for covering Paris Hilton and what-not stating flat out that he has to do it and it isn't his choice.

People like O'Reilly have to make a lot of decisions regarding their shows for business reasons. Just as Jerry Springer probably cares more about child abuse than midget fights but midget fight Springer eps outnumber child abuse eps twenty to one... O'Reilly giving Edwards more attention than Craig isn't evidence for O'Reilly being biased or hypocritical or whatever.
 
[quote name='Koggit']O'Reilly does indeed stand up for what he believes in and is, in fact, rarely hypocritical. You can't use a show like the Factor as grounds for condemning the host. He doesn't have complete control of the show, he has to say/do what the viewers want.

Most of you guys bashing him don't watch him, I think. I'm a fairly long-time viewer and still remember the days when he had to cover celebrity gossip trash on The Factor and always made these veiled comments that were obviously contempt for having to cover such "stories"... he used to choose viewer mail that called him out on it, and in response he'd apologize for covering Paris Hilton and what-not stating flat out that he has to do it and it isn't his choice.

People like O'Reilly have to make a lot of decisions regarding their shows for business reasons. Just as Jerry Springer probably cares more about child abuse than midget fights but midget fight Springer eps outnumber child abuse eps twenty to one... O'Reilly giving Edwards more attention than Craig isn't evidence for O'Reilly being biased or hypocritical or whatever.[/quote]

He was just following orders? That cop-out never works.
 
[quote name='Koggit']O'Reilly does indeed stand up for what he believes in and is, in fact, rarely hypocritical. You can't use a show like the Factor as grounds for condemning the host. He doesn't have complete control of the show, he has to say/do what the viewers want.

Most of you guys bashing him don't watch him, I think. I'm a fairly long-time viewer and still remember the days when he had to cover celebrity gossip trash on The Factor and always made these veiled comments that were obviously contempt for having to cover such "stories"... he used to choose viewer mail that called him out on it, and in response he'd apologize for covering Paris Hilton and what-not stating flat out that he has to do it and it isn't his choice.

People like O'Reilly have to make a lot of decisions regarding their shows for business reasons. Just as Jerry Springer probably cares more about child abuse than midget fights but midget fight Springer eps outnumber child abuse eps twenty to one... O'Reilly giving Edwards more attention than Craig isn't evidence for O'Reilly being biased or hypocritical or whatever.[/QUOTE]

Back when I had cable and would watch him sometimes, I saw exactly what you are talking about.

Specifically the whole Anna Nicole Smith death stuff. I'll never forget, he was vocally disgusted with the fact that he was covering it and promised he wouldn't talk about it again. A couple days later he ran another segment on it and prefaced it with "I know I promised I wouldn't talk about this vitriol, but producers are producers and ratings are ratings".

O'Reilly doesn't have total control over his show or what he talks about, neither does anyone running a show like his.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Back when I had cable and would watch him sometimes, I saw exactly what you are talking about.

Specifically the whole Anna Nicole Smith death stuff. I'll never forget, he was vocally disgusted with the fact that he was covering it and promised he wouldn't talk about it again. A couple days later he ran another segment on it and prefaced it with "I know I promised I wouldn't talk about this vitriol, but producers are producers and ratings are ratings".

O'Reilly doesn't have total control over his show or what he talks about, neither does anyone running a show like his.[/quote]

Ah the ol' good cop/bad cop routine. I don't want to give you this story, my producers made me read it. That's why even if it was a publicity stunt, I've gotta give it up to MSNBC for this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VdNcCcweL0

Now are you going to tell me that Mika B. has more pull then O'Reilly on the O'Reilly factor? If O'Reilly's brand of trash is the kind of media you want to spend your time protecting then Good Night, and Good Luck.
 
[quote name='Koggit']He's exec producer, it's not really following orders so much as it is doing what gets ratings -- like Springer.[/QUOTE]

He put his name on the show, end of story really.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again: If you pay attention to the news on the weekend, you are paying attention to the wrong news.
 
[quote name='camoor']
Now are you going to tell me that Mika B. has more pull then O'Reilly on the O'Reilly factor? If O'Reilly's brand of trash is the kind of media you want to spend your time protecting then Good Night, and Good Luck.[/QUOTE]

I think maybe you missed the part where I said I don't have cable, nor do I watch him anymore. "O'Reilly's brand of trash" is as valuable as all talking heads shows on cable news. It's just the most popular, so most picked on.
 
[quote name='camoor']Ah the ol' good cop/bad cop routine. I don't want to give you this story, my producers made me read it. That's why even if it was a publicity stunt, I've gotta give it up to MSNBC for this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VdNcCcweL0

Now are you going to tell me that Mika B. has more pull then O'Reilly on the O'Reilly factor? If O'Reilly's brand of trash is the kind of media you want to spend your time protecting then Good Night, and Good Luck.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. O Riely can do any damn thing he wants, what he wants is to be a loud conservative asshole then blame it on other peoples so he can maintain "independent status". He could not cover something if he choose to, he just actually wants to. Even if he didnt have legal control then you know what do as that Mika chick did and show you have a pair...show you have some journalistic integrity and refuse to cover the story.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']^I think you know better than that.

Should Edwards be held to a high standard? Sure. Now that we know his political career is done, done, done, I can't help but wonder why Newt Gingrich never fell under that same level of scrutiny for his sexual escapades.

Why does the liberal media fail me like that, and then fail to gain the approval of you knuckleheads!?!?!

As for O'Reilly, it's not about them being equal. It's about one person who has done the deed taking the other to task. It's like Bill Bennett calling out a gambler, Larry Craig calling out anonymous gay sex solicitors, or Sarah Palin calling out parents of pregnant, unwed teens. Irrespective of equal, irrespective of standards, it's simply absurd, unprofessional, and classless to chastise another person for fuckups you personally have done.[/QUOTE]

Gingrich did fall under the same level of scrutiny as Edwards. It's part of the reason he's a news commentator instead of ever being a potential vice presidential candidate. Why you probably don't remember it is probably because it was being overshadowed by impeachment. Although, the better observation is why McCain, who cheated on his first wife in Gingrich fashion, is deemed worthy of a nomination from the party of family values.

And regardless of the interrogator, the crime is still a crime, whether a legal or moral one. The message isn't invalidated just because the messenger is tainted. Dems shouldn't be able to admonish Reps for negative campaigning or vice-versa according to your rules - but they do.

Should all we sinners just keep quiet when we see others sinning ? If that's the case, eventually, no one could be called to answer for any transgression since there's no one pure enough to sit in judgement.
 
Because cheating on your wife doesn't get the same condemnation from pundits. Hell, Spitzer wouldn't have gotten in as much trouble if he had cheated with an intern instead of a call girl.

At the same time, I feel it's 100% more ethical to bang call girls instead of interns, daughter's best friends, or the nanny.
 
Personally as long as they arnt running on a family values campaign or claiming some kind of moral high ground I dont care if they are banging their 18 year old handicapped male intern. Its not hurting anybody and it has nothing to do with the job your doing in office. If your are doing a great job your doing a great job....so who cares what your putting your penis in.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Maybe politician's wives should just start putting out more and stop acting like they're the one that made it to the top.[/QUOTE]

You probaly meant that as a joke but I personally take the unpopular and not so politically correct stance that there is truth to that statement. A lot of people that cheat are just assholes who only care about themselves, but I believe there are also a lot of people out there that have cheated and wouldnt if their sex life was better. Woman tend to have alot more sex early on in a relationship when they feel they havnt nabbed a guy yet then later on the sex slows. This naturally makes men unhappy but most feel they cant bring up the issue, and even if they do woman are generally defensive over the issue. So the man begins to resent the woman and next thing you know their relationship sucks. At this point it becomes easy for a man to justify consciously or subconsciously that its ok for him to cheat.

I am not saying this is an excuse for a man to cheat, I went through a 3 year rough patch with my significant other and didnt cheat...and things still arnt the way I feel they should be even if she feels they are fine. I am just saying there is truth to the statement that if wives put out more men would be less tempted to cheat. Iv never known someone who isnt an asshole to cheat when they were in the early stage of a relationship where they are getting crazy sex all the time after all....its always later in the relationship where communication, feelings and sex have all fallen apart.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Exactly. O Riely can do any damn thing he wants, what he wants is to be a loud conservative asshole then blame it on other peoples so he can maintain "independent status". He could not cover something if he choose to, he just actually wants to. Even if he didnt have legal control then you know what do as that Mika chick did and show you have a pair...show you have some journalistic integrity and refuse to cover the story.[/QUOTE]

I've only ever seen O'Reilly mention being forced to run a story that was tabloid trash and had nothing to do with politics or partisan issues (like anna nicole smith). So I fail to see how that qualifies him for your above conjecture.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']You probaly meant that as a joke but I personally take the unpopular and not so politically correct stance that there is truth to that statement. A lot of people that cheat are just assholes who only care about themselves, but I believe there are also a lot of people out there that have cheated and wouldnt if their sex life was better. Woman tend to have alot more sex early on in a relationship when they feel they havnt nabbed a guy yet then later on the sex slows. This naturally makes men unhappy but most feel they cant bring up the issue, and even if they do woman are generally defensive over the issue. So the man begins to resent the woman and next thing you know their relationship sucks. At this point it becomes easy for a man to justify consciously or subconsciously that its ok for him to cheat.

I am not saying this is an excuse for a man to cheat, I went through a 3 year rough patch with my significant other and didnt cheat...and things still arnt the way I feel they should be even if she feels they are fine. I am just saying there is truth to the statement that if wives put out more men would be less tempted to cheat. Iv never known someone who isnt an asshole to cheat when they were in the early stage of a relationship where they are getting crazy sex all the time after all....its always later in the relationship where communication, feelings and sex have all fallen apart.[/quote]

I agree with you. I didn't mean it as a joke. Bill might have been a horn dog but I'm pretty sure that Hillary is a frigid chick that never gives up that ass.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Gingrich did fall under the same level of scrutiny as Edwards. It's part of the reason he's a news commentator instead of ever being a potential vice presidential candidate. Why you probably don't remember it is probably because it was being overshadowed by impeachment. Although, the better observation is why McCain, who cheated on his first wife in Gingrich fashion, is deemed worthy of a nomination from the party of family values.[/quote]

I bet it has nothing to do with his failure with the "Contract With America" or his incredibly low approval ratings and the way his own party felt he failed them as speaker by not having significant elections gains in 1998, when, given the Clinton scandal, they should have expected.

Likewise, Harry Reid/Nancy Pelosi might expect the same backlash if (when) the Democrats fuck up this election. Whether or not they deliver divorce papers on their spouse in the hospital so they can marry someone 30 years their junior who they've already been schtupping for 6 years.

And regardless of the interrogator, the crime is still a crime, whether a legal or moral one. The message isn't invalidated just because the messenger is tainted. Dems shouldn't be able to admonish Reps for negative campaigning or vice-versa according to your rules - but they do.
Click to expand...

Newscasters should be able to discuss any transgression, sure. But it's simply silly for someone to opine on the moral nature of someone who has committed the same (well, similar, since Edwards fucked a willing accomplice, and didn't stalk her/leave creepy messages/sexually harrass her/end the issue with a settlement, NDA, and an unwillingness to address the issue) violation.

Leave it up to the reporters, and chastise those who have made violations you have not. Otherwise, you're simply unfit to say anything.

Should all we sinners just keep quiet when we see others sinning ? If that's the case, eventually, no one could be called to answer for any transgression since there's no one pure enough to sit in judgement.
Click to expand...

Well, I've never stalked anyone or been unfaithful, so I can pass judgment if I want.

Though call me out should I ever chastise someone for being a drunkard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top