EVE Search - Oh wow... what an *******.

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

Oh wow... what an *******.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Rob Z0mbie	Posted - 2009.01.12 18:42:00 - [1] O`Reilly If it was I'd probably broke his teeth and fed them to him after making sure they were sharpened.
Polkageist Minmatar No Limit Productions OWN Alliance	Posted - 2009.01.12 18:51:00 - [2] Again o'reilly
Rob Z0mbie	Posted - 2009.01.12 18:53:00 - [3] Originally by: Polkageist Again o'reilly Yeah, watched that before, that kid was smart to come well prepared. Seriously, that man causes grief.
Captain Hudson Caldari Royal Hiigaran Navy	Posted - 2009.01.12 19:02:00 - [4] Originally by: Rob Z0mbie Edited by: Rob Z0mbie on 12/01/2009 18:51:35 O`Reilly If it was up to me I'd probably broke his teeth and fed them to him after making sure they were sharpened. hey you cant knock the man for telling it how he see's it. i love o'reilly and no im not american
baltec1 R.U.S.T. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.01.12 19:04:00 - [5] Why do people even bother to go on his show? That kid didnt even get a chance to talk...
Cyprus Black Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2009.01.12 19:06:00 - [6] Epic Fail, Bill O`Reilly
Slade Trillgon Masuat'aa Matari Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.01.12 19:20:00 - [7] Edited by: Slade Trillgon on 12/01/2009 19:21:20 Originally by: Captain Hudson hey you cant knock the man for telling it how he see's it. i love o'reilly and no im not american I can sure knock him for showing people absolutely no respect. He fails at journalism and passes epically at spreading his own, often times, warped opinion. That is not how you handle yourself as a reporter/journalist in my mind, or in any discussion for that matter. It is also not as if it was a one time act. He repeatedly acts like this and will not receive any respect from me, and I will leave my comments about him at that. FOX is a whole other story and I will not get into that either. If someone was in a conversation with you and acted like he does what would you do? Slade Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker Please go sit in the corner, and dont forget to don the shame-on-you-hat! ≡v≡
rValdez5987 Amarr 32nd Amarrian Imperial Navy Regiment.	Posted - 2009.01.12 19:29:00 - [8] Originally by: baltec1 Why do people even bother to go on his show? That kid didnt even get a chance to talk... If I went on that show I'd have only one thing to say. I'd tell the that fox nutjob that he can go F*** himself, and have security escort me out. lol
Captain Hudson Caldari Royal Hiigaran Navy	Posted - 2009.01.12 20:31:00 - [9] Originally by: Slade Trillgon Edited by: Slade Trillgon on 12/01/2009 19:45:25 Originally by: Captain Hudson hey you cant knock the man for telling it how he see's it. i love o'reilly and no im not american I can sure knock him for showing people absolutely no respect. He fails at journalism and passes epically at spreading his own, often times warped, opinion. That is not how you handle yourself as a reporter/journalist in my mind, or in any discussion for that matter. It is also not as if it was a one time act. He repeatedly acts like this and will not receive any respect from me, and I will leave my comments about him at that. FOX is a whole other story and I will not get into that either. If someone was in a conversation with you and acted like he does what would you do? Slade id give it right back.
Atnal	Posted - 2009.01.12 20:45:00 - [10] Thank goodness why I get the BBC on NPR Radio. I used to like Bill but then he's just become a nutjob like the rest of the mainstream journalists. Keith O on MSNBC is just a Obama cheerleader as FOX is the mouth piece to the conservative audience.
Jacob Mei	Posted - 2009.01.12 20:57:00 - [11] Originally by: Polkageist Again o'reilly Mistake 1: the kid accepted the interview. By his own admittion he knew how O'Reilly treats those who dont have the same view as him. Did he somehow think that O'Relly who is known for being a ** with legs was somehow going to let his view get through? Mistake 2: He let O'relly get under his skin with comments about his parents. Mistake 3: See mistake 1. O'Relly doesnt care about anything but being on his own show. He's an absolute ***** and is paid to be so (otherwise the first blow up would have been his last). The kid should NEVER have gone on the show, he should have responded to the requests with telling them to get bent or even going on another news network. O'relly thrives on conflict and makes sure to get it out of guests one way or another. -------------------------------- To borrow a phrase: Players who post are like stars, there are bright ones and those who are dim.
Irish Whiskey Caldari Warped Mining Strip Mining Club	Posted - 2009.01.12 21:07:00 - [12] geraldo was provoking him. keep in mind, it always takes two to tango.
Jacob Mei	Posted - 2009.01.12 21:10:00 - [13] Originally by: Irish Whiskey geraldo was provoking him. keep in mind, it always takes two to tango. Agreed though Geraldo was making a good point that O'relly was making a mountain out of an ant hill. Though on that same coin Id like to know why an illegal immigant was allowed to remain even after being caught by the police and having a record.
hundurinn Systematic Chaos. Gay4Life	Posted - 2009.01.12 21:11:00 - [14] Quote: O'Reilly's television show, The O'Reilly Factor, is routinely the highest-rated show of the three major U.S. 24-hour cable news channels and began the trend toward more opinion-oriented prime-time cable news programming. America, really??? Wow.
Irish Whiskey Caldari Warped Mining Strip Mining Club	Posted - 2009.01.12 21:16:00 - [15] Originally by: Jacob Mei Agreed though Geraldo was making a good point that O'relly was making a mountain out of an ant hill. Though on that same coin Id like to know why an illegal immigant was allowed to remain even after being caught by the police and having a record. I'm gonna make a total 'dont know what im talking about' statement that our lawyers have twisted the laws and processes so much that: the desk sarge would rather let him go and risk being caught, which would result in a proverbial slap on the wrist instead of starting the process to have this person deported, which opens the door to racism and inhumane hippie whinage about cops being bad
7shining7one7 Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2009.01.12 21:24:00 - [16] Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 12/01/2009 21:35:19 both geraldo and o'reiley are bought and paid for anyways.. it's kinda like politics.. oh how they argue they must disagree on so many issues? hehe... here's how it works, one says something completely outrageous (in this case bill o'reiley) next the psycho's cheer for o'reiley.. then the other guy pretends to be for the ppl and takes the moral highground to kinda dampen it down somewhat.. yet both of them hate demonstraters and protesters or ppl asking questions in general, especially about 9/11.. they hate them with a vengeance.. so they both make millions of you watching puppet 1 and puppet 2 yell at eachother.. and then they go have a drink afterwards and laugh at you. oh it works in politics too.. mccain, an old semi senile man who sings bomb bomb bomb bom bom iran.. at one of his meets.. (the outrageous factor) the psycho's cheer for mccain.. then comes obama and due to how crazy mccain sounds, obama sounds so immensely wise due to the contrast.. he takes the morale high ground.. and all he has to say after that is "look at how crazy that guy is" and "i stand for change".. he wins the precidency and proceeds with "change" which naturally is a change from how it was a week before he got into presidency but in reality is just the same continuity in even more radical forms.. welcome to the two party system.. don't you ever wonder why there's allways 2 people arguing in shows like that, instead of like what.. 10 ppl taking their turn to talk? because it polarises the debate.. that's why.. a polarised debate produces polarised oppinions and limits nuanced oppinions, perspectives and viewpoints "either you are with him or you are with the other guy, and you better not be with the other guy" and is thus easier to control. that's why they fear _true_ democracy (which as a result doesn't really exist anywhere) because it's nuanced and wise as it considers more factors than just two.. "we don't need no investigation, either the terrorists did it or you are f'ing insane"..
Gabrialle Amarr Sanctuary Logistical Industries Inc	Posted - 2009.01.12 21:33:00 - [17] Edited by: Gabrialle on 12/01/2009 21:34:06 Quote: O'Reilly's television show, The O'Reilly Factor, is routinely the highest-rated show of the three major U.S. 24-hour cable news channels and began the trend toward more opinion-oriented prime-time cable news programming. Could it be because these opinion-oriented shows are really funny to watch? The o'reilly show strikes me as next gen jerry springer tbh. Edit:- fails at quoting
hundurinn Systematic Chaos. Gay4Life	Posted - 2009.01.12 21:36:00 - [18] Edited by: hundurinn on 12/01/2009 21:36:15 Originally by: Gabrialle Edited by: Gabrialle on 12/01/2009 21:34:06 Quote: O'Reilly's television show, The O'Reilly Factor, is routinely the highest-rated show of the three major U.S. 24-hour cable news channels and began the trend toward more opinion-oriented prime-time cable news programming. Could it be because these opinion-oriented shows are really funny to watch? The o'reilly show strikes me as next gen jerry springer tbh. Edit:- fails at quoting Quote: 58 percent of O'Reilly's audience is over 50 years of age according to a Pew research poll. 64 percent of The O'Reilly Factors regular viewers identify as conservative while 10 percent consider themselves liberal. In June 2007, Adweek Magazine sponsored a survey that asked participants who they trusted more as a source of political information between ABC News and Bill O'Reilly. According to the poll, 36 percent believe that O'Reilly is a better source than ABC News, while 26 percent believe the opposite. According to the survey, 23 percent of Democrats believed that O'Reilly was a better source while 55 percent of Republicans believed the same. Seems to me that alot of people actually take him seriously.
Ivana Drake	Posted - 2009.01.12 22:04:00 - [19] meh, clash of male ego nothing new
7shining7one7 Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2009.01.12 22:05:00 - [20] Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 12/01/2009 22:10:29 here's another example this time the two polarizers are bill o'riley and richard dawkins.. an atheist and a judeo christian.. two polar opposites, watch how o'riley throws everyone into two categories in the introduction by saying things like agnostics don't believe in a higher power.. then they go on and dawkins and o'reily polarizes and indoctrinates your oppinions by presenting two options, either you believe in the judeo christian god (vote for bill o'riley), or you are an atheist (vote for dawkins).. because in no possible way could the truth be somewhere in between right? and you wonder why some ppl think like they do.. look no further.. ppl aren't stupid by nature, they are trained to disregard the nuances of reality and walk around like binary computers containing polarized oppinions presented to them as the only viable choices.. various combinations of 0's and 1's (polarized oppinions rather than nuanced ones) constituting their belief systems.. but never.. 54920141,2312312312^412, 934,9034141 or 42.. and what happens in math when you disregard decimals? you loose precision.. wake up.. turn off the mainstream media and think...
Taua Roqa Minmatar Silhouette Soliloquy	Posted - 2009.01.12 22:17:00 - [21] i dunno who either of them are but the man with the 'tash seems pretty chill.
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2009.01.12 22:38:00 - [22] Had to add this one. O'Reilly's part is real and (obviously) the other guy edited himself in for the hilarity. Still cracks me up...
Rondo Gunn Caldari Perkone	Posted - 2009.01.12 22:53:00 - [23] Originally by: Captain Hudson Originally by: Rob Z0mbie Edited by: Rob Z0mbie on 12/01/2009 18:51:35 O`Reilly If it was up to me I'd probably broke his teeth and fed them to him after making sure they were sharpened. hey you cant knock the man for telling it how he see's it. i love o'reilly and no im not american 9/10 Americans think this is a troll...
Sera Ryskin	Posted - 2009.01.12 22:55:00 - [24] I have to ask again: 7shining7one7, are you really a hardcore masochist, or do you honestly think you actually have something intelligent to say? Originally by: 7shining7one7 because in no possible way could the truth be somewhere in between right? and you wonder why some ppl think like they do.. look no further.. ppl aren't stupid by nature, they are trained to disregard the nuances of reality and walk around like binary computers containing polarized oppinions presented to them as the only viable choices.. various combinations of 0's and 1's (polarized oppinions rather than nuanced ones) constituting their belief systems.. but never.. 54920141,2312312312^412, 934,9034141 or 42.. and what happens in math when you disregard decimals? you loose precision.. Textbook golden mean fallacy. Sometimes one side is just wrong. In this case, it's O'Reilly. Quote: the reason neither of them are the answer is due to both of them being apologetic to their own oppinions, they are unable to be unsure and say "i don't know" due to the poles they have chosen for themselves they allways try to rationalize their position away by making up something plausible on the spot to fit the situation.. instead of just admitting gee i don't know for sure about that particular thing.. and that's the best i can do for now.. here's dawkins doing precisely that Ah, that old clip. Is there no low of dishonesty which you won't sink to? Here's a hint: Dawkins was "stumped" in that clip because the interviewer's question (right out of classic creationist propaganda) had just revealed that the interview, rather than being the honest documentary that they had claimed it was, was actually a creationist propaganda film. In other words, they had *lied* to Dawkins about their motivations. Even worse, that clip is heavily edited to make Dawkins look bad, that jump at about 30 seconds in removes a considerable amount of the interview. Not only that, but Dawkins *has* answered that question, in great detail, elsewhere (outside of dishonest creationist propaganda films). Quote: beliefs and science are both half truths.. they malfunction on their own but they operate well together. the only meaningful discussion to have with regards to anything is to say i have my perspective based on this and that, and you have your perspective based on this and that.. what we can interact with we can deal with and should, but we can not be certain of our conclusions since we do not know all the factors.. No, the only meaningful discussion we can have is for each of us to share our positions and supporting evidence, and then the one who is factually correct wins. In this case, it isn't you and your rambling nonsense.
Rob Z0mbie	Posted - 2009.01.12 23:03:00 - [25] Originally by: Captain Hudson Originally by: Rob Z0mbie Edited by: Rob Z0mbie on 12/01/2009 18:51:35 O`Reilly If it was up to me I'd probably broke his teeth and fed them to him after making sure they were sharpened. hey you cant knock the man for telling it how he see's it. i love o'reilly and no im not american Ofcourse you do. \(o.0)/
Sera Ryskin	Posted - 2009.01.12 23:07:00 - [26] Edited by: Sera Ryskin on 12/01/2009 23:10:17 To quote Dawkins himself on that clip: In September 1997,1 allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realizing that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to 'give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome'. It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was at this point I tumbled to the fact that I had been duped into granting an interview to creationists - a thing I normally don't do, for good reasons.* In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera. However, I eventually withdrew my peremptory termination of the interview, because they pleaded with me that they had come all the way from Australia specifically in order to interview me. Even if this was a considerable exaggeration, it seemed, on reflection, ungenerous to tear up the legal release form and throw them out. I therefore relented. My generosity was rewarded in a fashion that anyone familiar with fundamentalist tactics might have predicted. When I eventually saw the film a year later,f I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content.^ In fairness, this may not have been quite as intentionally deceitful as it sounds. You have to understand that these people really believe that their question cannot be answered! Pathetic as it sounds, their entire journey from Australia seems to have been a quest to film an evolutionist failing to answer it. This is then followed by a 13-page essay answering, in great detail, the concept of information in the mathematical sense and how it applies to genetics, along with how natural selection increases information content. The entire essay is obviously too long to post here (and that would be violating copyright laws anyway), but if you don't believe me, go find the book "A Devil's Chaplain". The essay in question begins on page 91. Now, the only question that remains is whether 7shining7one7 is as dishonest as the creationists, or whether he is just too lazy to check his claims before posting them. ========== Merin is currently enjoying a 14 day vacation from the forums. Until she returns, you've got me to entertain you!
7shining7one7 Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2009.01.12 23:22:00 - [27] Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 12/01/2009 23:26:05 Originally by: Sera Ryskin stuff and polarized views if you cannot recognize that dawkins is as apologetic and rationalizing as a fundamentalist judeo christian or anyone else who is concluded in their beliefs, then you cannot recognize it, it's fine.. and untill you find a textbook that explains the universe and everything in it considering ALL factors both seen and unseen... you're just spitting in the wind.. that sometimes someone is just wrong and right is a rationalization covering that failure is just as integral and important as success, perhaps even more so.. let me put it to you like this, just because you have seen a car, doesn't mean you can build one, just because you have seen an atom doesn't mean you can build one.. just because you have seen a sun doesn't mean you can build one.. and if you somehow manage to.. it was allready built before you built it. all we discover is what allready is.. the universe was before you discovered it and it is and was even if you never discovered it.. the fact that we exist is the statement that carries the highest potency of truth from which all other understanding emerges.. everything else is relative and untrue in comparison, nd us discovering the truth of that simple statement and refine and granulize it into things that work with us and for us or against us is part of that, but nothing adds to or removes from the potency of that statement. the only thing that is 100% accurate is that you exist.. all else is only discovering what that means, but whatever you discover it will not be as true as that.. you allready made the choice, now you are here to understand why you made it.. there are winners and loosers, yet there are no winners and loosers, because there is struggle yet there is none.
Sera Ryskin	Posted - 2009.01.12 23:25:00 - [28] Do you have anything to offer besides more drug-induced delusional rambling? I would try to argue with your stupid claims, but honestly, they're such incoherent nonsense I don't even know where to start. By the way, I will consider your silence on the issue of the Dawkins clip your concession that you are just a fraud who thought he could get away with lying. Too bad you got caught and humiliated again. ========== Merin is currently enjoying a 14 day vacation from the forums. Until she returns, you've got me to entertain you!
7shining7one7 Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2009.01.12 23:33:00 - [29] Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 12/01/2009 23:40:07 Originally by: Sera Ryskin Do you have anything to offer besides more drug-induced delusional rambling? I would try to argue with your stupid claims, but honestly, they're such incoherent nonsense I don't even know where to start. By the way, I will consider your silence on the issue of the Dawkins clip your concession that you are just a fraud who thought he could get away with lying. Too bad you got caught and humiliated again. why are you scared, you have nothing to fear from not being concluded, and everything to regain, why do you run from yourself, each step you take towards limiting yourself with concluded thoughts takes you further away from the absolute. love and joy is found in it, and the echoes and shadows of it is experienced by running away from it, the more you run the more you become afraid of love and get lost in the echoes and shadows of less potency.
Sera Ryskin	Posted - 2009.01.12 23:37:00 - [30] Edited by: Sera Ryskin on 12/01/2009 23:38:05 Originally by: 7shining7one7 Originally by: Sera Ryskin Do you have anything to offer besides more drug-induced delusional rambling? I would try to argue with your stupid claims, but honestly, they're such incoherent nonsense I don't even know where to start. By the way, I will consider your silence on the issue of the Dawkins clip your concession that you are just a fraud who thought he could get away with lying. Too bad you got caught and humiliated again. why are you scared, you have nothing to fear from not being concluded, and everything to regain, why do you run from yourself, each step you take towards limiting yourself with concluded thoughts takes you further away from the absolute. I take that as a no. I'm not scared of anything, I'm just laughing at your amazing stupidity. It's just hilarious to see someone taking their drug hallucinations seriously, most people at least have the common sense to realize that smoking stuff is just entertainment, not legitimate insight into the secrets of the universe. By the way, I am still waiting for you to admit that you were wrong about that Dawkins clip. Not that I expect you to, as you're just a fraud, and it would be even more humiliating for you to admit that you were wrong.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.