• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

A Question about O'Reilly's Book For Kids

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I'm disappointed that you as a parent would let your daughter read a book by a dirty old man like that. You let the whole Christian faith down.
 
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
I'm disappointed that you as a parent would let your daughter read a book by a dirty old man like that. You let the whole Christian faith down.
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing!

All the best in the new year!

-Charlie
 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
KidViciou$, thanks for the kind words.

O'Reilly's had a 30 year career in broadcasting. To the best of my knowledge, these are the first allegations of sexual misconduct against him. If he indeed was a "sexual predator", I would expect a history of improper behavior.

Until the allegations are proved, they are just that, allegations.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

Wouldn't you want others to do the same for you if you were in this situation?
Click to expand...

by all means yes, but this is my point. i don't follow what he says, and he protested pepsi because they had ludacris as a spokesman. he was citing ludacris' lyrics as being detrimental to impreshionable children, and pepsi, in a very meek manner, gave in to his demands of getting rid of luda as the spokesman

now, instead of fighting the allegation since o'reilly was innocent, he settled out of court with the stipulation that neither party did anything wrong. obviously SOMEONE had to be wrong, and because of this fact i associate some guilt to him, as i do with the woman

therefore, why should you support someone who didn't even want to go to court, and didn't sue his accuser for defamation?
 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
KidViciou$, a lot of people gain solace from Psalm 34, too.

Psalm 34

I will praise the Lord no matter what happens.
I will constantly speak of his glories and grace.

I will boast of all his kindness to me.
Let all who are discouraged take heart.

Let us praise the Lord together, and exalt his name.

For I cried to Him and He answered me!
He freed me from all my fears.

Others too were radiant at what He did for them.

There was no downcast look of rejection!

This poor man cried to the Lord -
and the Lord heard him and saved him out of his troubles.

For an angel of the Lord guards and rescues all who reverence Him.

Oh, put God to the test, and see how kind He is!
See for yourself the way his mercies shower down
on all who trust in Him. _Psalm 34:1-8 * Living Bible
Click to expand...

thanks for the scriptures rip, but as i read them, i don't feel anything. they are meaningless to me, and i just see them as being poetry
 
Originally posted by: KidViciou$
Originally posted by: Riprorin
KidViciou$, thanks for the kind words.

O'Reilly's had a 30 year career in broadcasting. To the best of my knowledge, these are the first allegations of sexual misconduct against him. If he indeed was a "sexual predator", I would expect a history of improper behavior.

Until the allegations are proved, they are just that, allegations.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

Wouldn't you want others to do the same for you if you were in this situation?
Click to expand...

by all means yes, but this is my point. i don't follow what he says, and he protested pepsi because they had ludacris as a spokesman. he was citing ludacris' lyrics as being detrimental to impreshionable children, and pepsi, in a very meek manner, gave in to his demands of getting rid of luda as the spokesman

now, instead of fighting the allegation since o'reilly was innocent, he settled out of court with the stipulation that neither party did anything wrong. obviously SOMEONE had to be wrong, and because of this fact i associate some guilt to him, as i do with the woman

therefore, why should you support someone who didn't even want to go to court, and didn't sue his accuser for defamation?
Click to expand...

Respectfully, I think all these points have been addressed. I think you'll see that if you read through my posts.
 
read his fiction book...its a great window into how the big o feels about women and minorities.
my friend picked this kids book up for me as a gift and i couldnt even get through a page of this tripe. he is so self-gratifying, the alledged calls he made come as no surprise.
now...it is true he was not convicted of anything but it is also true, i believe, that he never actually denied any of the allegations.
 
I'm not gona get into an argument about the bible but the reason you yourself quoted Rip is one of many in a very long list of reasons why I do not believe a word of the bible. That does not mean I do not believe that there is some truth to it, like any legend, but to take it word for word, in my view at least, is rather short sighted. Which is a common trait in very religious people when they talk about this subject as if they were there.

EDIT: spelling
 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
O'Reilly vs. Clooney

I would have posted a thread but I didn't know if it was a repost or not. I think clooney responded well-- O'reilly is such a pathetic creature.
Click to expand...

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6810015/
Bill O'Reilly's original comments



Stars, Money and the Tsunami...
Thursday, January 06, 2005
By Bill O'Reilly
Stars, money, and the tsunami: they are the subjects of this evening's "Talking Points Memo."

As Yogi Berra once said, "it is deja vu all over again." You may remember that in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack, there was a celebrity-driven TV telethon that raised millions for the affected families. And now, there will be another telethon raising money for those hurt by those the tsunami.

And once again, our pal [actor] George Clooney will be involved. You may also remember that Clooney strenuously objected to ?The Factor? investigation that uncovered problems in distributing the 9/11 money, even though we proved our case and the Red Cross revamped its entire operation because of it.

Clooney objected to many things, but one of them was my insistence that if celebrities ask for money, they have a moral obligation to see the donations go where they're supposed to go. -- Clooney disagreed.

So now we're back in the same spot. A national TV telethon will raise millions and ?The Factor? will be watching to see if the money gets to the tsunami victims. If it does not, there will be trouble. And this time nobody can say they weren't warned.

If George Clooney and other stars go on TV and ask you to give, then they had better be involved all the way down the line. Now I don't expect the celebrities to audit the books, but if problems are brought to their attention, they must help solve those problems.

Sending billions of dollars into chaotic areas is fraught with danger, even if is the right thing to do. Americans must demand reasonable accountability. We expect some of the money to be stolen or wasted. But we also expect American authorities to hold people accountable and to let us know if bad things are happening.

"Talking Points" believes the American people are the most generous in the world. But it is our job here to make sure you are not taken advantage of. And we will do that job. We want the telethon to be a big success and we applaud the time and generosity of George Clooney and the other stars. But with power comes responsibility. And we expect all the telethon people to understand that.
Click to expand...

George Clooney's response to Bill O'Reilly

January 10, 2005
Mr. O?Reilly,

In response to your lead story on January 6, where you attack the Sept. 11 telethon, it is incumbent upon me to help you get your facts straight.

First, to clarify, it was not the Red Cross but the United Way that sponsored that telethon... an easy mistake to make... if you're 3. :laugh:

Second, contrary to what you claim, no one objected to you investigating where the funds were going, but we strenuously objected to you insinuating that it was a fraud (which is what you did) as we were still waiting for a list of names of the dead. 6,000 was the number when you broadcast your attack (some 3,000 was the real number), that is simply a fact... no spin. There's no question, sir, that you have become quite powerful. The panic that you started that week scared other charitable organizations into simply handing out money to anyone who walked into their office. I suppose the threat of a Senate investigation would scare most anybody. It was an interesting week though... you showed up on the Today Show to talk about the telethon, but when pressed by Matt Lauer, admitted that you would only talk about the scandal if they hawked your new book. Fact... no spin. You said your tactics weren?t about ratings, and that same week took out ads bragging about beating Larry King for the first time, all while Eliot Spitzer and Frank Thomas and Josh Gotbaum were weeding through the difficult task of who was dead and who was not.

I don't make as much money as you, Mr. O?Reilly (a fact that's easy to check), but I'm fascinated by your use of the word CELEBRITY as if you're not one... you put on make up, you do Leno, The Today Show, go on book tours, and do junkets, so let?s be clear... you are a well paid celebrity. Period. No spin. And, to quote you last week, "with power comes responsibility"... people canceled their pledges because YOU told them that the telethon was flawed... a lot of money that should have gone to a lot of needy families didn't, because you wanted a controversy... and controversy has made you a celebrity... remember, sir, that this is me you're talking to publicly. I was the one you called several times the day before the telethon to say that we ?had to include ?The Factor?? in the press interviews, and that it "wasn't fair to leave us out, we?re a news program?. Fact... no spin. I think people should know that.

Now, here's the only important fact: the 9/11 telethon was an unqualified success from the beginning to the present and we make sure of it. (I say WE because I'm on the board of directors of the United Way).

Your report last Thursday was a preemptive strike... NOT to protect the families affected by the tsunami, but to create more controversy for your own personal gain. Because of it, fewer people will donate money to help truly traumatized victims; they'll be afraid that their money will do no good.

So all right, Mr. Journalist... come on in. I'm booking the talent for the Tsunami event... and you, Mr. O?Reilly, are now officially invited to be a presenter... (at this point, not one of the people I?ve invited to donate their time has said ?No?)... this way, You can personally follow up on our fundraising... this is your chance to put your considerable money where your considerable mouth is... show up... help raise money... and if we're doing something wrong, point it out. I believe firmly in the check and balance system... you'll get nothing but a handshake and a ?Thanks for helping out? from all of the rest of us ?celebrities?.

So what do you say, Mr. O?Reilly... either you ante up and help out AND be that watch dog that you feel we clearly need... or you simply stand on the sidelines and cast stones, proving that your January 6 TV show was nothing more than a ?box of lights and wires? designed to make you wealthy.

We do the show this Saturday, it?s across the street from where you shoot ?The Factor?.

I'll need a quick response.

Your fan,

George Clooney
Click to expand...
 
Rip, you are a coward.

Clearly the woman had something on Bill O, that he didn't want to come out, which is why he paid her a large, yet to be determined, amount of money.

I supposed Jacko didn't do anything with the kids he paid off? Get over it, he's not the 2nd coming of Christ like he pretends to be...and enough with the bibilical quotes already.
 
Originally posted by: NeoV
Rip, you are a coward.

Clearly the woman had something on Bill O, that he didn't want to come out, which is why he paid her a large, yet to be determined, amount of money.

I supposed Jacko didn't do anything with the kids he paid off? Get over it, he's not the 2nd coming of Christ like he pretends to be...and enough with the bibilical quotes already.
Click to expand...

Great example of a zealot who takes a predictable political position on a matter that isn't religious at heart. (See my thread on zealots and crypto-zealots in P&N).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top