|
|
| nankerphelge |
He had the author of Old Gods on (Davis??) and went on a surprising tirade of how the Stones were the "face of evil."
I say surprising because there isn't any new revelations here as to the boys' behavior and I would have thought O'Reilly knew all of this. But he seemed genuinely shocked by a number of points -- for example, Brian Jones was a deadbeat dad and beat women, drug addiction by Keith, use of drugs in front of their kids, that the Stones "use people," adultery (I am reminded of the T-shirt from Voodoo Lounge about all the things the STones survived).
I also say surprising because this behavior is certainly not limited to the Stones -- in fact, I would say that in retrospect, the Stones are some of the least worrisome groups out there as far as bad behavior goes (they were just the first to use it as a marketing tool). Throw in politicians, sports stars, movie stars, etc. -- Christ, the STones look like choir boys.
Anyhow, thought it very interesting that our heros could still stir up such controversy in 2002!
|
|
|
| ~AzQb |
Hell, that O'Reilly cat is OLD. Both literally& FIGuratively!
~A |
|
|
| Maxlugar |
I love Bill O'Reilly!
No Spin Zone Baby!
|
|
|
| ~AzQb |
MistaLuga!!!
I like him too, actually; quite a bit! What i DON't dig is the man's obvious "have to be right" all the time, every time. I've never heard him utter the fact that he makes mistakes-- like any other human! But as far as reality checks, Bill's the JAM ; )
Oh yes he is. He's just seemingly THE control freak and prolly drives ALL his assistants 'round the bend, you know.
~"Happy"-iest of New Years' to ya, B !
~A |
|
|
| Joey |
Remember " Pat Buchanan ??????"
Meet the " New " Pat .......
Same as the " Old " Pat.....
Don't get fooled again . |
|
|
| nankerphelge |
I also see similarities to Pat -- that same antagonistic style. But I think Pat is highly off his rocker, while I think O'Reilly is totally sane -- just a very calculated rouser. Like Madonna, he has the art of self-promotion down pretty damn good. I think some of his points are very good - I think others are products of his beginning to love his own voice. He was way off on the Stones thing. I have no problem with his moralism toward elected officials -- I don't believe a President's getting his pencil sharpened in the Oval Office is his "personal business." But with people like the Stones, they have never touted upstanding behavior to the public -- we can decide for ourselves if we want to buy their product -- we are not a captive audience. Since when did rock stars have to start behaving like choir boys? |
|
|
| Maxlugar |
I agree Nanky. The letters in the viewer mail section pretty much attacked him last night.
Bill is not Pat at all though. He actually has some liberal views also.
|
|
|
| nankerphelge |
well he says he has some liberal views but I sure haven't seen many of them. I think he says that merely to disarm his critics. Although I've not read his book -- maybe he lays them out there. What did the letters say -- I was working late last nite |
|
|
| Maxlugar |
Just the other nite he was going on about rasiing the minimum wage. I read the Factor. IT's quite good. He's got some liberal ideas on Drugs and Health care. And he can be surpisingly anti-corporation.
But despite his liberalness, he's a good guy. LOL!!!
Most people who wrote in were pissed that he trashed the Stones. One guy wrote that if all bands conformed to his expectations, we'd all be listening to the Osmonds.
Maxlugar Von Pithy Spin Zone |
|
|
| nankerphelge |
My pop-in-law got the book for Christmas -- I'll probably read it when he is thru. I would imagine it is good -- he is very persuasive in many respects. Hope he want to legalize chiba -- Britain finally headed in the right direction and I would suspect with the decreased budget for interdiction, and the war on terror, the U.S. might loosen up some day. I hope so -- stupid law. |
|
|
| Briansrevenge |
Really, what the hell was that O'Reilly tirade anyway? Is this news? No! and "evil"? Motherfucker please...besides, no one is holding the Stones out as patron saints nor looking to them as "role models"...if Stones fans still need a role model, they got bigger problems than the Stones' debauchery...who's next, Elvis? Damn that hip-shaking faggot! |
|
|
| CS |
Are the Rolling Stones Evil?
This is a partial transcript from The O'Reilly Factor, January 2, 2002. Click here to order the complete transcript.
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the Back of the Book segment tonight, they are perhaps the most successful rock band in history, the Rolling Stones. But after reading the book Old Gods Almost Dead, I came to the conclusion that these blokes, most of them, anyway, have embraced evil to an astounding degree.
Joining us now from Boston is the author of the book, Stephen Davis. Page after page after page, Mr. Davis, children out of wedlock, hard drug use, intoxication, using other people, betrayal, adultery, violence against women, on and on and on and on. Yet, these people are lionized. They come to America. We buy concert tickets, $50, $60, $70, dancing around. These are evil guys, are they not?
STEPHEN DAVIS, AUTHOR, OLD GODS ALMOST DEAD: Well, I don't think so, Bill. But I understand where you're coming from. You know, over —it a 40-year saga of a bunch of young guy who started out as teenagers on an improbable quest and ended up as this plutonium offshore corporation. And they had to step on a lot of bodies in order to get where they are.
O'REILLY: You don't think that they're evil guys? I mean, Brian Jones, for example, six children out of wedlock, doesn't support them, beats up his girlfriends. I mean, physically punches them in the face. Keith Richards, heroin addict for decades, sharing needles with other people. His own son, Marlin, watching him take heroin. You don't think this is evil conduct, Mr. Gains?
DAVIS: No, it's Davis. I think that, you know, the Rolling Stones are great artists, in my opinion. And I'm a Rolling Stones fan. And this book Old Gods Almost Dead is really sort of my love letter to the Rolling Stones.
O'REILLY: I know, Mr. Davis. And I'm sorry I got your name, I was thinking about the Beatles author for a minute. And that was my next question. The Beatles are so much different. But look, look, this is what I want to zoom in on.
You don't see them as evil people, even though you chronicle in your book, page after page of the terrible things they've done. And I don't know how you separate that out, see? I'm a big fan. That's why I read your book. I was brought up with the Rolling Stones. I like some of their music.
I don't sit there with my eyes going, I hate these guys. I hate them." What's the difference between you and me?
DAVIS: Well, the difference is that I don't see them as being evil. I see them as being great artists, whose relationships with other people are worth noting and are important. And as much as the evil stuff that you see in it, I see also a lot of love and a lot of great art.
So in any biography, you have to kind of balance out the good and the bad. So it's important to remember that, Bill, this is only rock and roll and...
O'REILLY: But it isn't.
DAVIS: ...you shouldn't be too ponderous about...
O'REILLY: It isn't only rock and roll. It's about the corruption of children. It's about beating up women. It's about lying. It's about all kinds of —every immoral action that I could ever think anybody, short of murder, OK, is in your book. And maybe Jones got murdered. I mean, that's possible.
DAVIS: True.
O'REILLY: And you see, your take on it is non-judgmental.
DAVIS: Right.
O'REILLY: I have to say that. You do not judge these guys at all. And I think that's what society, when your successful in our society, whether you're music or Hollywood or whatever or athlete, you get away with stuff that ordinary people would condemned in a heartbeat.
DAVIS: Well, absolutely. You know, one of the reasons I wrote this book is because the Rolling Stones have always mounted a very successful public relations front. And I wanted to do this book unauthorized, so it wouldn't be an exercise in public relations.
And once you get away from, you know, having to get a group of musicians to sign off on a book this, it gives you the freedom or the license, perhaps, to really delve into some of the darker aspects of their lives, but these are also balanced out by this great music that they've produced and also by the therapeutic aspect of this stuff.
You know, I think rock and roll is an anti-terror pill. If you're terrorized by some of the things that are going today, it doesn't hurt to put on a Rolling Stones jam and sit back and have fun and let it rock.
O'REILLY: All right, so you're saying that the good that these guys might accomplish by their tunes overrides the abysmal conduct that they have ventured upon. And they're not getting any better. I mean, you would think that they may learn a few lessons here over the years.
But I was particularly appalled by the children aspect, because they all have children. And they all did the most terrible things that you could do right in front of their children. And that just offended me to no end. And yes, I understand your point about the tunes and how they're escapist and people them and all of that, but I think society should be condemning this kind of behavior, rather than lionizing it.
DAVIS: No, I don't think artists should be condemned, Bill. You know, I think when you do that, you start getting into like, you know, rallies burning records and stuff like that. And I think that's very dangerous.
O'REILLY: I wouldn't burn their records. I'd just...
DAVIS: You should play their records, actually.
O'REILLY: No, I wouldn't —would I play their records? It's a good question. That's a good question. I like their music, but I just think that they're the dregs of the earth. And I think that if society would condemn their behavior, there would be less of it from the so-called artists. You see what I mean? They get away with it. These guys get away with it. And therefore, other people do it and they continue to do it. I'll give you the last word.
DAVIS: Well, I think they get away with it because an artist uses his life to make art. And you take the material that you see on a day-to-day basis. And you've got to keep those pages turning or, in their case, you've got to keep those grooves spinning. And I think the Rolling Stones used their life and their work. And they put it into their art in a brilliant manner.
O'REILLY: Well, maybe so. But I think that the Beatles showed you could do it, not that they were saints, but they were not anywhere near what these degenerates are. Mr. Davis, thanks very much. We appreciate you coming on.
DAVIS: Thanks for having me on, Bill.
Click here ( http://fn.emediamillworks.com/ )to order the complete transcript of the entire O'Reilly Factor.
Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2001 Fox News Network, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2001 eMediaMillWorks, Inc. (f/k/a Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon Fox News Network, Inc.'s and eMediaMillWorks, Inc.'s copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation
|
|
|
| Jaxx |
i've been a fan of the "no spin zone" for many years having followed bill o'reilly's career from ABC, to the tv rag Inside Edition and now his own show on Fox News. while i don't always agree with mr. o'reilly, (but i always find him humorous) this guy does his homework, whether or not you agree or disagree with his interpretation of the facts. you gotta love a guy whose recent pet project is to get the victims of sept 11th paid in a timely manner and demanding an accounting of the money. somebody's got to bulldog and this guy is it.
ANYWAY, in light of this conversation, and bill o'reilly's "loose" definition of "what is evil",(LOL, what a laugh!) i was HOWLING to run across this "timely bit" in USA TODAY:
Sean Penn has a few words for Bill O'Reilly
"I think that people like the Howard Sterns, the Bill O'Reillys and to a lesser degree the bin Ladens of the world are making a horrible contribution (to society). I'd like to trade O'Reilly for bin Laden. (O'Reilly) is a grumpy, self-loathing joke." — Actor Sean Penn in the February issue of Talk magazine. Penn also compared the Fox News Channel's conservative talk-show host to Hitler and Joe McCarthy. O'Reilly got the last laugh Wednesday: "Madonna called me up and told me not to worry about it," he said, referring to Penn's ex-wife.
|
|
|
| The Eggman |
They come to America
Oh there're evil cus they're British? |
|
|
| swapwoodfortaylor |
I too saw the O'Reilly Factor. It was his first live show of 2002 supposedly. The normally highly proficient presenter did a terrible job of controlling his previous guests' arguments. Perhaps he was simply in a bad mood after fluffing the show by the time he got to the Stones slot. No excuse for his ignorant behaviour though. His major gripe was about activities in the '60s. 40 years ago! When his petulance subsides I bet he goes looking for a 2002 concert ticket! |
|
|
| Mother baby |
Hyperbolic overkill on O'Reilly's part me thinks.
|
|
|
| Mother baby |
Elvis too I suppose? If it hadn't been for that Elvis guy maybe Mick and Keith & Co. wouldn't be the "face of evil" today. lol. Anyway the more I think about this one the more I don't understand why this guy didn't demolish O'Reilly's arguments on the spot. Anyone can complile a dirty laundry list about anyone...so what? |
|
|
| Mother baby |
...besides O'Reilly The Delvis made 'em do it! |
|
CHAT ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]