Reply With Quote
So you think Ferguson was just as bad as Buenos Aires right after Argentina got its ass kicked by the Brits? Really? How old were you 33 years ago anyway?
Ferguson wasn't a war zone and neither was this.
Not as dangerous as a war zone.
So you think Ferguson was just as bad as Buenos Aires right after Argentina got its ass kicked by the Brits? Really? How old were you 33 years ago anyway?
Nicely done Chump.
tlongIIAbsolutely.So you think Ferguson was just as bad as Buenos Aires right after Argentina got its ass kicked by the Brits?
By all means link them
Since no one died in either one, the difference is probably one of scale only.
Neither was a war zone.
No amount of stamping about will make it one.
If you want to get nostalgic about it, I wouldn't call Kent State a war zone either, even though it was more deadly and dangerous than Buenos Aires.
War zones are where, you know, wars are fought.
Ya if we are talking verified accounts, Ferguson was much more violent.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ex-nbc-bu...ands-war-riot/
Ex-NBC Bureau Chief Backs Up O’Reilly’s Account of Falklands War Riot
Two former CBS reporters have strongly disputed Bill O’Reilly‘s accounts of what happened one night when they covered a riot in Buenos Aires, but on The Factor tonight, O’Reilly brought on a former NBC News bureau chief who backed up his story.
Don Browne was the NBC News Miami bureau chief at the time, and he oversaw the network’s Falklands coverage. And Browne told O’Reilly his account was accurate. As opposed to some of the other accounts, which have to some extent downplayed the danger, Browne said the situation “got progressively more intense” and there were demonstrations in Buenos Aires every day
Both O’Reilly and Browne recalled a “very intense situation where people got hurt” and how “this was an extremely violent and volatile situation” where reporters were in danger.
O’Reilly also spoke with Mediaite’s own Joe Concha, who wrote a column this week questioning the motivations of O’Reilly’s attackers. Concha told O’Reilly that Mother Jones is in the business of throwing red meat to progressives, and beyond that, the story isn’t making much headway anyway.
There was no Twitter or Facebook 33 years ago.
Ya if we are talking verified accounts, Ferguson was much more violent.
"A" former bureau chief (meaning one) said
"very intense situation where people got hurt"
"this was an extremely violent and volatile situation"
Well that just trumps Ferguson in spades!
As Chump already reminded:
"War zones" you know, where wars are fought and lots of people die.
Ya this really backs up Oreillys account.
BROWNE:It was the progression that led up to -- you call it a riot.
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/20...nds-war-riots/
Yep, you call it a riot.
Not a war zone.
Fog of war, man. Everyone knows how dangerous det porch was.
They both have specifically and repeatedly stated on their programs that they are not journalists. even Jon Stewart was making fun of this lame attempt to hold O'Reilly to the same standard as a legit journalist on his show tonight.
Well it's weird because Billo keeps going on about his time as a journalist in war zones in "the Falklands" and Palm Beach.
He's the king of bloviating, what else would you expect.
I was actually in Buenos Aires, about 8 miles away from where Bill was that day... lol warzone
Peeps in Buenos Aires riot all the time. ie, google all the following:
- 1989 riots in Argentina
- December 2001 riots in Argentina
- 2013 police revolts in Argentina
No war during any of those times...
What's true is that the military junta was ruthless... Their power was fading though, and the Falklands war was basically a last ditch attempt to seize the population again, which failed miserably. A few months after losing the war, elections were called and that's the first time I've seen democracy in my life. Since then, it's been a democratic republic (corrupt, but democratic).
BO not being a "journalist" now doesn't give him license to lie about his "war zone" bravado as a journalist 30+ years ago.
7 of his CBS colleagues say he lied.
Ailes/Fox of course gives all Fox its people license to lie non-stop, and you old, white, pissed-off, ignorant Fox viewers love being lied to.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 02-25-2015 at 09:20 AM.
Link?
tbh, I don't watch either show, so I simply have to guess.
Bill O'Reilly Lied About Witnessing Suicide Of JFK Assassin's Friend, Former Co-Workers Say
new allegations have emerged that the Fox News anchor lied about being present at a suicide in Florida.
“He was in Dallas,” Tracy Rowlett, a former colleague of O’Reilly’s at Dallas station WFAA, told liberal watchdog Media Matters. “Bill O’Reilly’s a phony -- there’s no other way to put it.”
The Fox host has claimed on several occasions that he heard the gunshot that killed George de Mohrenschildt, a friend of JFK assassin Lee Harvey Oswald who committed suicide at his daughter’s home in Florida in 1977. O’Reilly originally made the claim in his 2012 book, Killing Kennedy. He repeated it during an appearance on "Fox & Friends" while promoting the book: “I was about to knock on the door where [de Mohrenschildt] was, his daughter’s house, and he blew his brains out with a shotgun,” O'Reilly said (see embedded video at the bottom of this piece). He made the claim again in an adaption of Killing Kennedy for younger readers.
Rowlett and Byron Harris, another of O’Reilly’s WFAA colleagues at the time, both say the embattled host was with them at WFAA’s Dallas headquarters when de Mohrenschildt died.
The station "would have reported it as some kind of exclusive -- and there was no exclusive -- if O'Reilly had been standing outside the door,” Harris said.
Not only did WFAA run no exclusive, but the story was broken by The Dallas Morning News.
Live by the lie, get trashed by your lies.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...ushpmg00000003
LOLOLOL
O'Reilly is lying. Post-Falklands "riots" were no more dangerous than the usual "killed-by-whitecop" aftermath back in the US.
, in fact it's the way around.
Bill O’Reilly’s absurd new conspiracy theory: Critics just angry we’re right about everything!?
he claimed that Fox News was under attack because it speaks the truth too powerfully.
“The reason is fairly simple — Fox gives voice to conservatives and traditional people far more than most national news agencies do,” he said. (Also, I would like to know what a “traditional person” is.)
And reason why criticism of Fox News has grown so fervent recently? O’Reilly explained: “We are putting tremendous pressure on the Obama Administration to fight the terror savages.”
http://www.salon.com/2015/02/25/bill...error_savages/
Old News: The Impact of the Aging Viewership on Bill O’Reilly and Fox News
When it rains, it pours.For Fox News and its month of May, the hits just keep on coming.As was reported Wednesday, Fox News’ viewership is down 27% this month thanks largely to the network’s insistence upon beating the dead horse that is known as Benghazi. In fact, this number was so low that it actually marked the network’s lowest monthly ratings since before 9/11.
As disheartening as this is for Fox News at the moment, what might be even more depressing for the network concerns the demographics of their current audience.
Take, for example, the network’s flagship program The O’Reilly Factor. The program for the past month averaged 313,000 nightly viewers. Despite the fact that this was the lowest amount in over twelve years, the program still more than doubled the viewership of both CNN and MSNBC. However, the interesting statistics involve who exactly was watching The O’Reilly Factor. According to the numbers less than fifteen percent of O’Reilly’s audience fell within the key 25-54 demographic, and the average age of O’Reilly audience was 72 years old.
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/05/...p-program.html
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
