Are You An Extremist?
Thursday, August 25, 2005
By Bill O'Reilly

Are you an extremist? That is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo".

The loony left is furious that we have outed Cindy Sheehan as a radical, diminishing her credibility. Ms. Sheehan's latest is calling foreign terrorists, who infiltrate into Iraq freedom fighters. Very nice.

And the loopy right is mad because I said Jesus might not be down with Reverend Pat Robertson putting out a contract on Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

There are no shortage of extremists here in the land of the free. However, there's a problem with labeling someone an extremist. And that is they may be rational in most areas, but off the wall in a few.

But I think we can safely establish some rules for the road here. An extremist is someone who rejects facts and holds on to opinions no matter what. Millions of Americans wanted Richard Nixon to stay in office despite overwhelming evidence he covered up a felony. That was an extreme position.

Millions of others thought it was perfectly fine for President Clinton to lie under oath in the Paula Jones deposition. Another extreme position.

Extremists aren't born. They evolve. Baby Brandon doesn't pop out of the womb, demanding to watch "The 700 Club" or "Fahrenheit 911."

In my opinion, extremists have a neurosis. They really don't want to hear anything other than the conclusion they've arrived at, no matter what the evidence suggests.

So are you an extremist? "Talking Points" has devised a short list of indicators:

• If you think Michael Moore reports accurately, you're an extremist.

• If you think the documentary "Outfoxed" tells the truth about this network, you're in the extreme zone.

• If you agree with Reverends Falwell and Robertson that gays and abortionists caused God to allow 9/11, you're an extremist.

• If you still think Terri Schiavo is aware of her surroundings, this extreme is for you.

• If you believe an open border is good for the USA, you have entered extreme territory.

• If you feel foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, and convicted child sex offenders should not serve long prison terms, say hello to the extremist label.

• If you agree that Allah is OK with slaughtering civilians, you're extreme.

• If you admire the philosophy of the Third Reich, you're there.

• And if you agree with everything President Bush has done, you're an extremist.

• And if you think everything he's done has been wrong, put a big 'E' on your forehead as well.

• And finally, if you applaud when Barbra Streisand talks geopolitics or when a right wing talk show host urges a nuclear strike on Iran, welcome to the wonderful world of extremism.

And that's "The Memo."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166709,00.html
*******************************************************

This is from a few weeks back as you can see by the date, but I thought it was interesting. I think he makes a good point here.

He's a bit off on Sheehan IMO, but everything else seems right about on target. It's kind of "stating the obvious" in some points, though.

I hid another one of O'Reilly's T-points somewhere else in the forum this week, not noting the author, and no one seemed to pick up on it. Oh well.

O'Reilly, like Michael McMoore or John Stewart or Sean Hannity are often times are correct (IMO) about political issues. They are the ones who generally push it to extremes though. I don't think watching "farenhheit 9/11" makes you an extremist. If you believe all of it, then you do ahve issues.

I think Bill forgot a couple:

*If you like telling stories to female coworkers about your backroom adventures at a Thai sex show, you're headed to Extremeville.

*If you brag to your female coworkers about how you're going to score with "hot" Italian women while your pregnant wife is at home, yeah buddy, you're extreme.

*If you readily admit to a female coworker that you own a vibrator "shaped like a cock with a little battery in it" and masturbate with it while speaking to her, you are the newest resident of La Villa Extrema.

•If you're a slimy, ex-Hollywood/celebrity reporter who does all of the above things, then starts a "news" show and preach to Americans about how extreme, immoral, or otherwise they are...well, that doesn't make you an extremist, but it sure as hell makes you an irrelevant douchebag.

It's about fact vs. opinion. Facts are facts, regardless who says them. The opinion of slimeballs like O'Reilly, or Ted Kennedy for that matter, mean little to me.

Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying.

BTW Glad to hear you enjoyed the Crowes show last week.

C'mon ... shouldn't it be, "If you believe 5 of these things ..." Then I could make it under the wire.

None of which will likely ever be proven (or disproven, for that matter).

True, but you've gotta admit some of that stuff is just too weird to have made up.

Depends if the plaintiff's law firm had anyone with some knowledge of the porn industry.

I ain't never seen no falafel in a porno dude.

potd

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/30/15205/7571

Bill O'Reilly Says He Will "Destroy" Daily Kos Today
by Hunter
Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 12:28:17 PM MST

Today, Father Coughlin -- er, sorry, frog in my throat -- Bill O'Reilly is planning another in his ongoing attacks against Daily Kos and YearlyKos. Fox News has apparently been emailing the Democratic campaigns asking them for "comment" on Bill's ongoing Jihad of Jackassery: the following email was sent on to us from one of those Democratic campaigns:



So, what was this abominable photoshopped image, the one that was supposed to "bury" Daily Kos by the mere fact that some commenter once put it on the site? Well, here it is, but I warn you, it is very graphic and mean and abominable and it causes puppies to cry, so we don't dare post it. Click here to see it.



Good Lord. You're kidding, right?

You know, the longer this goes on, the more silly it gets. Bill O'Reilly now has people contacting Democratic presidential candidates to ask them what they think about random pictures posted by random users of a website? Are we serious?

What's the next Fox News jihad? Are we going to ask the candidates their positions on itchy sweaters? What about that kid who said a mean thing to Bill O'Reilly back in the third grade -- do you think the candidates might want to talk about that? What's Bill O'Reilly's favorite breakfast cereal, and do the Democratic candidates agree with him, making them patriots, or disagree with him, making them no-good dirty rotten communists?

This is what's supposed to "destroy" the progressive netroots? A bunch of photoshop pictures, some snark, some angry language and a few jerks? I can find worse things -- things which will truly drain your soul from you -- in a Bill O'Reilly novel.


I'd like to point a few things out here. First, myspace.com, also owned by News Corp, just purged 29,000 convicted sex offenders from their site. That's more rapists, pedophiles, and sexual predators on a single Rupert Murdoch site then total trolls we have ever banned from ours. And yet Bill O'Reilly says nothing -- is it because, as a renowned pervert himself, he likes associating with rapists and pedophiles and sexual predators? Or is there another explanation? Bill O'Reilly's own site contains language threatening violence against Democratic leaders and presidential candidates -- and not only did he _not_ remove that language when it was pointed out, but pointing it out apparently was the far worse violation. And then he lied about it, yet again, on his own program. Is it because Bill O'Reilly is _comfortable_ with violent threats against Democrats? Perhaps he is, given his history.



But the simplest explanation is that Bill O'Reilly is merely an idiot. A narcissistic, egotistical jackass who surrounds himself entirely with the obtuse and manipulative -- a blowhard who has proven, time and time again, to be not just willing but eager to manufacture fake news, or ignore the real news, or lie about the news in order to give his narrow demographic band of fearful, ignorant and twittering viewers something to feel good about. He is a tabloid journalist surrounded by accusations of sexual harassment, employee abuse and lying through his teeth in front of a camera, and Fox News isn't just supportive of all those things, they absolutely crave them -- a sleazy tabloid host for a sleazy tabloid network.

Can you imagine any other news network mounting a multi-pundit jihad against a group of grassroots Americans, merely because they have the audacity to not support the Republicans? Can you imagine any other news network getting themselves into a bitter televised fight with a political community website?

Of course not. Because Fox News isn't "news" at all, and this is yet another example of why they should not be considered a legitimate news network, or even an "opinionated" news network. Actual news networks do not fabricate stories -- Fox News does. Actual news networks do not send pundits out in attempts to punish and/or sabotage grassroots political events of the opposing party -- it would be absurd. Only at Fox News, where a spectacular lack of ethics is after all the cornerstone of the efforts to manipulate the very news itself in order to prop up Republicans, would such things not get you immediately fired.


I want to point something else out here, however. Take a look at what's happening. Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, a multi-kajillion dollar company, is having to battle us. And they're having to do it as equals. They're a giant, well-financed corporation: we're a damn collection of websites and grassroots groups. We took away their ability to host Democratic presidential debates: they struck back by launching an on-air battle against one of the YearlyKos sponsors.

They've launched themselves into a pathetic tit-for-tat, now choosing to take time out of their busy schedule of lying about the news to making conservatives feel better about themselves in order to start lying about us, because we're finally to the point where we're starting to threaten their abilities to get away with their manipulative, hatemongering crap -- redbaiting, anti-patriotic blubbering that went out of style decades ago among all Americans but the most trembling and fear-driven and bigoted. They're battling us on equal terms because they have to. And by mere virtue of that fact, we're winning.

So bring it on, Falafel Boy. As far as I'm concerned you should be mentioning us every day of the week. Five years from now, I'm betting you're not going to have a show to do it on anymore.

I think the apropos response for this quiz would be: Are You A Simpleton?


Do you find any of Bill O'Reilly's basis for his opinions, stances, and/or declarations to be of any substance, importance, or relevance? Welcome to Simplevania.

O'Reilly is obviously cherry-picking a huge website.

But this has had me thinking about something--to what extent can an interactive website be held responsible for the content its users post? I mean, take this forum, for example--I know there's been plenty of extreme things said about public figures here. It's easy enough to say "RM does not necessarily condone or agree with the opinions of its users", but how far can that go?

Infinitely.

A website operator CANNOT be held responsible for the posts of its users. This is not a legal distinction, it's a moral distinction.

So this was by a random poster?

Way to over react again Bill...

Does this still hold true if, say, a hardcore porn link gets posted for a decent amount of time?

I'm not sure I get your drift...

There's nothing illegal about hardcore porn, so there should be nothing illegal about posting a link to it, or for a board operator to allow it to remain posted.