Bill O'Reilly Strikes Back At Motherjones

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

You don't like YOUR MAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE being called "Obaminable"?

As for the "misinformation and poor logic" .... you accusing anyone of posting "misinformation and poor logic" is a re-assuring compliment.

Not only do you not like official maps of government agencies, you don't like the quotes from the laws they pass! You'd rather cut and paste from a blog?

And you call me an "idiot"? .... Keep calling the Earth flat. Gruber will buy it.

Case in point!

LMAO @ Idiot Papa

[UnderConstruction]

More cbs colleagues dispute bill's story

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_6727988.html

[JD Barleycorn]

Here is the take away from the latest round; liberals like UC are determined that because one of theirs got nailed (for very good reasons) that he wants to nail someone from the right. We could get into a discussion of how far to the right O'Reilly is but he works for Fox News and that is all that is important to the impotent left.
According to Huffpo the capital of Argentina was not a "combat situation" AFTER the war was over....duh!
There were riots that toppled the government but no news crew got killed or injuried (never mind the locals).
Bill O'Reilly was called down for being out in the street doing his job but also ignoring rules about calling attention to yourself (O'Reilly is 6'4" tall) by turning on lights to get the shot.
Engberg says O'Reilly was not out there by himself (did O'Reilly claim that he was?) but then says O'Reilly went out at night (while the other newsies stayed inside) and that was why he needed the lights.

Sounds like Engberg supports what O'Reilly really said and not what critics have been claiming he said. We told you, you can't trust MJ for real news. It's propaganda at it's worst.

Then again, did Brian Williams ride in a helicopter with Seal Team Six? NO. Was Brian Williams in Berlin the night the wall fell? NO. Was Brian William's helicopter shot down? NO. These are incontrovertible lies. UC and other libs like him want to argue minutia. How much snow fell last night? It must have been two feet. LIAR! It only fell to a depth of 1 foot and 10 inches!

UC, you and your ilk look ridiculous with this little vendetta. I will also point out that O'Reilly is a commentator now and not a news reader. Shepard Smith is the news reader....then again, Smith is a liberal isn't he.

[UnderConstruction]

You've fucked up once again, but why am I surprised. Williams got what he deserved. I waited until the whole story came out before deciding, unlike you. People are innocent until proven guilty, after all. He lied. I have no problem with what happened to him. That's something you don't understand about me; if I'm wrong, I'll admit it. If I'm not, I won't. It's not a tit for tat thing. Liars of any ilk should be called on it. Oh and bill was definitely a news guy when this happened, not a commentator.

[timpage]

O'Reilly is a blowhole.....and apparently a liar as well.

Bill O'Reilly's account of a 1982 riot in Argentina is being sharply contradicted by seven other journalists who were his colleagues and were also there at the time.

The people all challenge O'Reilly's depiction of Buenos Aires as a "war zone" and a "combat situation." They also doubt his description of a CBS cameraman being injured in the chaos.





"Nobody remembers this happening," said Manny Alvarez, who was a cameraman for CBS News in Buenos Aires.
Jim Forrest, who was a sound engineer for CBS there, said that when he heard O'Reilly retell the Argentina riot story to interviewer Marvin Kalb several years ago, he contacted Kalb and said "I was on that crew, and I don't recall his version of events."
The contradictions come several days after Mother Jones, a left-leaning magazine, first reported about the discrepancies in O'Reilly's claims about his coverage of the Falklands War. O'Reilly was a young correspondent for CBS News at the time, assigned to cover the war from Buenos Aires, which was more than 1,000 miles from the offshore conflict zone.
In the years since, O'Reilly -- now the biggest star on Fox News -- has repeatedly referred to his experience in the "war zone."
In his 2001 book, "The No Spin Zone," O'Reilly wrote, "I've reported on the ground in active war zones from El Salvador to the Falklands."
On his show "The O'Reilly Factor" in 2013, O'Reilly told a guest, "I was in a situation one time, in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands, where my photographer got run down and then hit his head and was bleeding from the ear on the concrete. And the army was chasing us. I had to make a decision. And I dragged him off, you know, but at the same time, I'm looking around and trying to do my job, but I figure I had to get this guy out of there because that was more important."
Mother Jones challenged some of these claims. O'Reilly responded by accusing the magazine of trying to smear him to hurt Fox News, and said the report's co-author, David Corn, is a liar and an "irresponsible guttersnipe."
Eric Engberg, a CBS correspondent who was also in Buenos Aires at the time, defended Corn in a Facebook post on Friday and said, "It was not a war zone or even close. It was an 'expense account zone.'"
Longtime NBC News correspondent George Lewis, who was also there at the time, agreed with Engberg, writing on Facebook, "Cushiest war I ever covered."
Did O'Reilly's photographer get "run down" and bloodied?
CNN has interviewed seven people who were there for CBS, and none of them recall anyone from the network being injured.
"If somebody got hurt, we all would have known," Alvarez said.
In a Friday interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt, O'Reilly said the photographer's last name was Moreno. Roberto Moreno was there for CBS. He now lives in Venezuela, and he declined to comment to CNN.
But Mia Fabius, who was the office manager for the CBS Miami bureau at the time, has stayed in touch with Moreno for decades, and she said Moreno has never spoken about any injury in Argentina.
Further, Fabius said no injury report was ever filed.
Engberg, Alvarez and Forrest spoke on the record about their recollections of the Argentina coverage. Four other people who were there for CBS spoke on condition of anonymity, some because they still work in the television industry and others because they don't want to be publicly criticized by O'Reilly.
All of the people said they're unaware of any civilians being killed in the riot. In O'Reilly's 2001 book, he said "many were killed."
"There were certainly no dead people," Forrest said. "Had there been dead people, they would have sent more camera crews."
Alvarez called the claims of deaths "outrageous, outrageous."
"People being mowed down? Where was that? That would have been great footage. That would have turned into the story," he said.
CNN's report from Buenos Aires at the time described "a squad of tear-gas-armed troops" and a crowd "hurling coins, rocks, and even bricks at both police and journalists," but no deaths.
O'Reilly has repeatedly defended his claims, including on Fox News on Sunday morning. "I don't know if he was there," O'Reilly said, implying that Engberg may not have witnessed the riot. He called Engberg "Room Service Eric," alleging he often stayed in his hotel during unfolding news events.
Speaking on CNN, Engberg called that "the most absurd thing I've ever heard" and said "I never ordered room service during a riot." Engberg also said he, as well as an entire team from CBS, was out in Buenos Aires and in a position to see the protest.
O'Reilly also cited a New York Times account of the riot that said "one policeman pulled a pistol, firing five shots over the heads of fleeing demonstrators." This supports the depiction of a dangerous protest, though does not confirm O'Reilly's claim that people were killed that night.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

That's something you don't understand about me; if I'm wrong, I'll admit it....

Hahahahaha.... I will give you 5 Pinocchios for that whopper, Undercunt!

You were busted twice in the other thread ("The GOP shows its stupidity once again....") for being flat-out wrong about 1) the 1964 Civil Rights Act voting percentages and 2) whether Obama nearly doubled the national debt - and you still fought like a rabid raccoon denying it!


BUSTED AGAIN! Just like your messiah!

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Hahahahaha.... I will give you 5 Pinocchios for that whopper, Undercunt!

You were busted twice in the other thread ("The GOP shows its stupidity once again....") for being flat-out wrong about 1) the 1964 Civil Rights Act voting percentages and 2) whether Obama nearly doubled the national debt - and you still fought like a rabid raccoon denying it!


BUSTED AGAIN! Just like your messiah!

I admitted he was right when looking purely at the percentages. I also contend that doesn't tell the entire story and if you would be intellectually honest with yourself, you would know that.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by timpage

O'Reilly is a blowhole.....and apparently a liar as well.

Bill O'Reilly's account of a 1982 riot in Argentina is being sharply contradicted by seven other journalists who were his colleagues and were also there at the time.

The people all challenge O'Reilly's depiction of Buenos Aires as a "war zone" and a "combat situation." They also doubt his description of a CBS cameraman being injured in the chaos.





"Nobody remembers this happening," said Manny Alvarez, who was a cameraman for CBS News in Buenos Aires.
Jim Forrest, who was a sound engineer for CBS there, said that when he heard O'Reilly retell the Argentina riot story to interviewer Marvin Kalb several years ago, he contacted Kalb and said "I was on that crew, and I don't recall his version of events."
The contradictions come several days after Mother Jones, a left-leaning magazine, first reported about the discrepancies in O'Reilly's claims about his coverage of the Falklands War. O'Reilly was a young correspondent for CBS News at the time, assigned to cover the war from Buenos Aires, which was more than 1,000 miles from the offshore conflict zone.
In the years since, O'Reilly -- now the biggest star on Fox News -- has repeatedly referred to his experience in the "war zone."
In his 2001 book, "The No Spin Zone," O'Reilly wrote, "I've reported on the ground in active war zones from El Salvador to the Falklands."
On his show "The O'Reilly Factor" in 2013, O'Reilly told a guest, "I was in a situation one time, in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands, where my photographer got run down and then hit his head and was bleeding from the ear on the concrete. And the army was chasing us. I had to make a decision. And I dragged him off, you know, but at the same time, I'm looking around and trying to do my job, but I figure I had to get this guy out of there because that was more important."
Mother Jones challenged some of these claims. O'Reilly responded by accusing the magazine of trying to smear him to hurt Fox News, and said the report's co-author, David Corn, is a liar and an "irresponsible guttersnipe."
Eric Engberg, a CBS correspondent who was also in Buenos Aires at the time, defended Corn in a Facebook post on Friday and said, "It was not a war zone or even close. It was an 'expense account zone.'"
Longtime NBC News correspondent George Lewis, who was also there at the time, agreed with Engberg, writing on Facebook, "Cushiest war I ever covered."
Did O'Reilly's photographer get "run down" and bloodied?
CNN has interviewed seven people who were there for CBS, and none of them recall anyone from the network being injured.
"If somebody got hurt, we all would have known," Alvarez said.
In a Friday interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt, O'Reilly said the photographer's last name was Moreno. Roberto Moreno was there for CBS. He now lives in Venezuela, and he declined to comment to CNN.
But Mia Fabius, who was the office manager for the CBS Miami bureau at the time, has stayed in touch with Moreno for decades, and she said Moreno has never spoken about any injury in Argentina.
Further, Fabius said no injury report was ever filed.
Engberg, Alvarez and Forrest spoke on the record about their recollections of the Argentina coverage. Four other people who were there for CBS spoke on condition of anonymity, some because they still work in the television industry and others because they don't want to be publicly criticized by O'Reilly.
All of the people said they're unaware of any civilians being killed in the riot. In O'Reilly's 2001 book, he said "many were killed."
"There were certainly no dead people," Forrest said. "Had there been dead people, they would have sent more camera crews."
Alvarez called the claims of deaths "outrageous, outrageous."
"People being mowed down? Where was that? That would have been great footage. That would have turned into the story," he said.
CNN's report from Buenos Aires at the time described "a squad of tear-gas-armed troops" and a crowd "hurling coins, rocks, and even bricks at both police and journalists," but no deaths.
O'Reilly has repeatedly defended his claims, including on Fox News on Sunday morning. "I don't know if he was there," O'Reilly said, implying that Engberg may not have witnessed the riot. He called Engberg "Room Service Eric," alleging he often stayed in his hotel during unfolding news events.
Speaking on CNN, Engberg called that "the most absurd thing I've ever heard" and said "I never ordered room service during a riot." Engberg also said he, as well as an entire team from CBS, was out in Buenos Aires and in a position to see the protest.
O'Reilly also cited a New York Times account of the riot that said "one policeman pulled a pistol, firing five shots over the heads of fleeing demonstrators." This supports the depiction of a dangerous protest, though does not confirm O'Reilly's claim that people were killed that night.

He's been lying and bloviating for years. If he lied, he should lose his job for a period of time. Just watch the guy interview someone he doesn't agree with. He's a bully. He very rarely has the facts on his side so he just talks over them.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

He's been lying and bloviating for years....Just watch the guy interview someone he doesn't agree with. He's a bully. He very rarely has the facts on his side so he just talks over them.

For a fucking pinhead, you sure watch him a lot!

[gnadfly]

In other news, Bill O'Reilly wasn't really there in person for the killing of Lincoln, Kennedy and Jesus either.

And I'm not thanking him for his service.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by lustylad

For a fucking pinhead, you sure watch him a lot!

"It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.

- Sun Tzu

It would do you good to watch something else... anything else

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

"It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.

- Sun Tzu

It would do you good to watch something else... anything else

Keep watching, pinhead. Unfortunately for you, I know a lot more about what makes libtards tick than you think you know about conservatives. It would do you good to get your ass off the couch in your mommy's basement and do some reading. Start with the Economist, Foreign Affairs, and the National Review. And if you really read and comprehended the Art of War, it would do you good to apply Sun Zsu's lessons to ISIS instead of O'Reilly.

.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Keep watching, pinhead. Unfortunately for you, I know a lot more about what makes libtards tick than you think you know about conservatives. It would do you good to get your ass off the couch in your mommy's basement and do some reading. Start with the Economist, Foreign Affairs, and the National Review. And if you really read and comprehended the Art of War, it would do you good to apply Sun Zsu's lessons to ISIS instead of O'Reilly.

.

Of course you do. I know a lot about conservatives. I used to be one. Until I stopped drinking the kool-aid. Their only idea is to be against whatever Obama is for. That's not a plan.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Of course you do. I know a lot about conservatives. I used to be one. Until I stopped drinking the kool-aid. Their only idea is to be against whatever Obama is for. That's not a plan.

Caught in a lie again. You're three for three government worker. If you knew just a little about conservatives you would know that they predate Obama and his brand of Muslim socialism. We opposed Al Gore Jr. and John Kerry. We also opposed Bush's proposed amnesty and his nomination of Harriet Miers. We have been against Hillary and the Clinton slime machine. We even opposed the feckless Carter and his weak kneed attempt to deal with Iran.

It is not about race, sex, or party. It about philosophy and competence.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

It is not about race, sex, or party. It about philosophy and competence.

You just went over his head. He's still consumed with the Student Council election.