Bill O'Reilly Gets Whoopi Goldberg and & Joy Behar to Walk Off The View

Real classy, them two. It shows a sign of weakness or just plain being wrong when people do that. It's not like they're debating a fanatical nut here.

TexasBlue wrote:Real classy, them two. It shows a sign of weakness or just plain being wrong when people do that. It's not like they're debating a fanatical nut here.

Or maybe O'Reilly was just being an asshole again and they'd had enough.

off-topic - i love the new smilies but you might want to bring back :rolleyes: . It serves a very good purpose.

You just don't like ol' Bill. He was bringing up good points but those two didn't want to hear it.

This one?

TexasBlue wrote:You just don't like ol' Bill. He was bringing up good points but those two didn't want to hear it.

This one?

Bill was beating a dead cow. He was trying to be a jerk. Any "point" he was trying to make got lost in his typical holier-than-thou attitude. If he would have just acted like a human-effing-being, it wouldn't have happened. But that's typical Bill. IMO, they should have decked him. And given Barbara's reaction just after, I wouldn't be surprised if the two don't stay on the show. And that's the real point of the incident - shows like that don't really care about real debate. They want exactly what Whoppi and the other gave them. Kudos for them not taking it.

Yeah, that one. It usually gets the point across.

Well, you have to remember that Hasselbeck is the only one in that line up that's not on the left. You also miss the point of why it go0t that way. Who started shouting over who first? Sure wasn't Bill. Plus, it's the point of whether Muslims attacked the USA. They didn't like that. They wanted to hear Muslim extremists. Too bad, so sad. I don't see any people on the left criticizing Christian extremists. No, they go after the Christians. Not to mention, Baher has said some pretty rotten things about the religious.... so she's not one to talk.

You have to click the View more Emoticons drop-down now. I put the emoticons into two categories because there's getting to be too many of them.

TexasBlue wrote:Well, you have to remember that Hasselbeck is the only one in that line up that's not on the left. You also miss the point of why it go0t that way. Who started shouting over who first? Sure wasn't Bill. Plus, it's the point of whether Muslims attacked the USA. They didn't like that. They wanted to hear Muslim extremists. Too bad, so sad. I don't see any people on the left criticizing Christian extremists. No, they go after the Christians. Not to mention, Baher has said some pretty rotten things about the religious.... so she's not one to talk.

You have to click the View more Emoticons drop-down now. I put the emoticons into two categories because there's getting to be too many of them.

Second thing first... Oh okay, I didn't see that. Yeah, that works. But what you could do (if you like of course(*coughs*)) is re-arrange the smilies so that the one's people use the most show up on the main screen and the rest are on the pull-down things. It's just an idea.

I don't have a problem with Elizabeth Hasselbeck being on the show. Nor do I have a problem with her being a righty. And really, I wouldn't care if there were more righties on. My problem is when one (with the history such as O'Reilly has) is allowed to say what he said. He was being inciteful and rude - and he got his butt whooped... I mean, if they would have debated the exact same issue without Bill's presence, I'm sure there would have been some disagreement, but not to that point.. By Bill's presence and by him doing what he always does, the disagreement reached a completely unwarranted level. He caused it and Whoopi and Joy(?) were right to walk out.

But again, I figure the show wanted that to happen. Controversy = ratings

So what was it that he was "allowed" to say that was offensive?

And what about Walters calling out her own cohorts. Even she knows that they were wrong in walking off... which again, shows weakness in debating.

TexasBlue wrote:So what was it that he was "allowed" to say that was offensive?

Do I really need to answer that?

It may not have been "appropriate" for them to walk off. But trying to debate someone who clearly doesn't want to debate isn't really appropriate either, is it? The fact is, he's an entertainer - not a journalist. He has no right spewing stuff like that as if it were fact. That's why they got pissed... Again, I think Whoppi (or Joy) should have just decked him.

Look, I dislike O'Reilly as much as the next guy. I think he's arrogant, a bit of a blowhard, and much to self important for my tastes.

*deleted* Both Whoppi and Joy were cutting Bill of before he could even articulate a single thought. This is because they did not want to hear what Bill had to say. But since they knew what his position was before he ever came on the show (no guest goes unresearched not on professional tv), then their interruptions were calculated to prevent Bill from having his say, and the audience from hearing him say it. That, and this kind of harassment typically puts a guest immediately on the defensive. It is deplorable what Whoppie and Joy did, and to add insult to injury, they then play the "victim" by walking out, a grandstanding move that is only designed at further discrediting the guest.

All in all, it was a typical performance by 2 liberals who have the debating skills of a fence post. I've watched this show many times and not a single one of these women could debate their way out of a wet paper bag. They are "talent," mere talking heads and nothing more.

Though, as you point out ILM, it is certainly good for immediate ratings, and that may have been another calculation behind this shameful outburst. But as they learned after Rosie, that wears off after a while and damages the show's reputation. It is a ploy best used very sparingly.

Oh, and as an aside to call Hasselbeck a "righty" is a misuse of that term. She is no more on the right than I am on the left. She is barely lukewarm right, not even that really. She would make a RINO look like a staunch conservative. I've watched the show enough to learn that much.

And as for Bill not being a journalist, well hell, neither are any of the women of the view! You've got two actors, an alleged comedian, a former reality show star, and a puff-piece interviewer (who hasn't been an actual "journalist" in years). In other words, every single person on that show was an "entertainer" as you put it. If the women are allowed to spout off stuff as "facts" as if they have all the answers 5 days a week, why should not Bill be granted that same opportunity, particularly since he was INVITED on the show to give his opinion on the issues???

i_luv_miley wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:So what was it that he was "allowed" to say that was offensive?

Do I really need to answer that?

Yeah.

dblboggie wrote:And as for Bill not being a journalist, well hell, neither are any of the women of the view! You've got two actors, an alleged comedian, a former reality show star, and a puff-piece interviewer (who hasn't been an actual "journalist" in years). In other words, every single person on that show was an "entertainer" as you put it. If the women are allowed to spout off stuff as "facts" as if they have all the answers 5 days a week, why should not Bill be granted that same opportunity, particularly since he was INVITED on the show to give his opinion on the issues???

Thank you! Finally! Bill is on Fox News, and yet we both seem to agree that he is not a journalist. And yet he's on a "news" network? So what does that tell you?

And I never said that The View girls were journalists. They're obviously entertainers as well - and let's be honest, except for Whoopi (who has a good acting resume), the others aren't very good at it.

And Larry King is on CNN and Keith Olbermann is on MSNBC. Both news channels. How dare they sit on news network and give an opinion!

i_luv_miley wrote:

dblboggie wrote:And as for Bill not being a journalist, well hell, neither are any of the women of the view! You've got two actors, an alleged comedian, a former reality show star, and a puff-piece interviewer (who hasn't been an actual "journalist" in years). In other words, every single person on that show was an "entertainer" as you put it. If the women are allowed to spout off stuff as "facts" as if they have all the answers 5 days a week, why should not Bill be granted that same opportunity, particularly since he was INVITED on the show to give his opinion on the issues???

Thank you! Finally! Bill is on Fox News, and yet we both seem to agree that he is not a journalist. And yet he's on a "news" network? So what does that tell you?

And I never said that The View girls were journalists. They're obviously entertainers as well - and let's be honest, except for Whoopi (who has a good acting resume), the others aren't very good at it.

Well hell, there are a lot of opinion show hosts on the broadcast networks who aren't journalists either. In fact, ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX (broadcast, not cable) and CW all have news programs, but none of the other shows they air (the rest of their schedule) has anything to do with the news content on those show.

So just because FNC hired Bill to do an opinion show means nothing. It doesn't mean Bill is a journalist, and it doesn't mean FNC's actual news shows aren't real journalism.

And yes, apart from Whoppie (who I actually like), the rest are crap actors/comedians at best...

TexasBlue wrote:And Larry King is on CNN and Keith Olbermann is on MSNBC. Both news channels. How dare they sit on news network and give an opinion!

Just my point above. Just because a cable news network hires someone to run an opinion show on their network doesn't meant that the network's actual hard news shows aren't real journalism. I don't understand how people confuse these two things.

We watch the evening news on ABC, CBS, NBC, etc, and this is then followed by "How I Met Your Mother" or "CSI" or "Chuck" and other such pure entertainment fair. And nobody confuses these programs with the news programs.

It just so happens that the cable news outlets idea of filler entertainment content is opinion talk shows. Nothing wrong with that.

dblboggie wrote:It just so happens that the cable news outlets idea of filler entertainment content is opinion talk shows. Nothing wrong with that.

Can't dispute that. If they broadcast news only (with no opinion shows), it's get awful boring real quick. Just watch Headline News and one gets the gist of what i'm talking about.

For the record, i've watched Olbermann numerous times. I know what i'm getting when watching him, so i don't complain about what he says. But on the other hand, when people who don't like FNC........

TexasBlue wrote:

dblboggie wrote:It just so happens that the cable news outlets idea of filler entertainment content is opinion talk shows. Nothing wrong with that.

Can't dispute that. If they broadcast news only (with no opinion shows), it's get awful boring real quick. Just watch Headline News and one gets the gist of what i'm talking about.

For the record, i've watched Olbermann numerous times. I know what i'm getting when watching him, so i don't complain about what he says. But on the other hand, when people who don't like FNC........

Yeah... I know... I just don't get it. An opinion show is an opinion show, the news is the news. If one can't tell the difference, well...

dblboggie wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:

dblboggie wrote:It just so happens that the cable news outlets idea of filler entertainment content is opinion talk shows. Nothing wrong with that.

Can't dispute that. If they broadcast news only (with no opinion shows), it's get awful boring real quick. Just watch Headline News and one gets the gist of what i'm talking about.

For the record, i've watched Olbermann numerous times. I know what i'm getting when watching him, so i don't complain about what he says. But on the other hand, when people who don't like FNC........

Yeah... I know... I just don't get it. An opinion show is an opinion show, the news is the news. If one can't tell the difference, well...

Now we're on the same page, I think. <---- btw, stupid smiley

Keith's show is entertainment and so is Rachel Maddow's. I mean, I watch them and I'm the first to admit they're ninety-nine percent entertainment. But it's that one other percent that gives them the edge over the likes of Bill or Glenn Beck... And that edge is, Keith and Rachel base their opinions on facts. Fox doesn't do that. Their people base their opinions solely on fear. And that some people actually take them seriously (about anything) is disturbing.

dblboggie wrote:Whoppi and Joy were cutting Bill of before he could even articulate a single thought. This is because they did not want to hear what Bill had to say.

Now he knows what it feels like on his show.

He doesn't walk off his show like a loser as those two did.

i_luv_miley wrote:Thank you! Finally! Bill is on Fox News, and yet we both seem to agree that he is not a journalist. And yet he's on a "news" network? So what does that tell you?

The same rationale behind accepting Rush Limbaugh's views on climate change. Amazing double standard there from certain elements of the right isn't it?

The real problem there seems to be that 6 people were all trying to talk at once. Whoopi was behaving fine - letting him speak in his own time, etc until he made that stupid Muslim comment. Joy Behar (no idea who she is) was shrieking like a banshee much of the time he was speaking. The problem was 6 shrill women and one stupid man (who is also deliberately trying to annoy them) - is not a good recipe for discussion. I'd have walked too - not because I was offended, but because someone needed to tell the shriekers to STFU and let one person speak before the rest rail road in. It's got nothing to do with being a liberal or whatever - when you have 6 vs. 1 - on any side of the political fence - 1 is going to wind all 6 up, they're going to try and talk at the same time, a farce will descend, one silly bint will think the best way she can make her point is by walking off (she had nothing of interest to say in any case) and that'll be the end of it. Face it, if it had been Maher and 5 other Conservatives talking to one Liberal - they'd have all been railroading them in the same way - fighting to be the first to show how disgusted they were at the Liberal ideas.

Pretty good analysis but i disagree on the Muslim thing. He stated that Muslims attacked America. And that is a fact. Those two were taken aback by that statement because it wasn't "sensitive" and politically correct. I get tired of people who are "offended" by certain words or phrases. If it's a fact, then it is. By the same token, O'Reilly never said that all Muslims are terrorists like some right-wingers here in America do. I see that on other boards and it's silly to even fathom that thought.

What galls me is many bitch about O'Reilly (not calling you out on that, Bec) but never spend a whole week watching his show. I challenge the O'Reilly haterz in here to do just that. One week straight.

TexasBlue wrote:Pretty good analysis but i disagree on the Muslim thing. He stated that Muslims attacked America. And that is a fact. Those two were taken aback by that statement because it wasn't "sensitive" and politically correct. I get tired of people who are "offended" by certain words or phrases. If it's a fact, then it is. By the same token, O'Reilly never said that all Muslims are terrorists like some right-wingers here in America do. I see that on other boards and it's silly to even fathom that thought.

What galls me is many bitch about O'Reilly (not calling you out on that, Bec) but never spend a whole week watching his show. I challenge the O'Reilly haterz in here to do just that. One week straight.

Well, I can't watch a straight week of his shows - they don't air here - but I get the feeling my opinion of him would only worsen. I've seen lots of clips on youtube - usually when he's talking over to Dawkin, Christopher Hitchens, or someone else I'm actually interested in listening to. I don't usually get to hear much of what they have to say though.

With regards to the Muslim thing - I don't have a problem if someone wants to criticise Islam - that's fine. And if they want to criticise groups of Muslims when they do something bad - also, absolutely fantastic. My own rants about the Danish Cartoons are the stuff of legend: they left a smoking hole in the fabric of the internet. But I don't think it is right to say the 'Muslims attacked America.' In much the same way that I wouldn't be ok with someone saying 'Americans are racist' because of the KKK, or the French are smelly because...no wait, bad example. I do freely admit that Muslims generally do not do enough to condemn the violent behaviour of other followers - but all religions are guilty of that, unfortunately. Perhaps their reaction is down to a hyper-sensitive PC attitude - but for me, I'm very wary of people being lumped into a group based upon the actions of a small group of those followers. Once you start down that road, you're leaving yourself wide open to all sorts of issues. Those terrorists fit into a lot of other categories too, and whether you like it or not - saying Muslims attacked America is very close to saying all Muslims attacked America.