I have never seen Bill O'Reilly interrupt a person actually trying to answer a question. Rather, the person interviewed often ignores the question and uses the opportunity to make a memorized speech (it apparently is) that most often is filled with false premise and things the speaker wishes were true presented as if they were proven. I believe that these types know that their rantings are not substantive, but choose to be deliberately disingenuous anyway. I have actually heard many left leaning persons say that they do know that the things that they themselves say are not entirely true, but that the end justifies the means, or the result of their speech has a "beneficial effect".
I am very dissapointed in the left, and think that they will eventually go the way of their mentors, the Bolsheviks, into the wastebins of history. But not before they have caused untold suffering, political repression, and economical collapse and a society bereft of truth.

I listen to Air America Radio in L.A. most of the day on 11:50AM and get most of my news from Tom Hartman from 9-noon and Randi Rhodes noon to 3. Keith Olberman at 5:00 PM is great, but CSPAN is also a good source

Harlan,

I agree with you that one should have the facts to back up opinions, particularly if presented in the media. I also detest name calling, shouting, etc. However, from what I have observed the radical, shrill behavior frequently comes from the right.....along with name calling (Rush L. and his "feminazis"), shouting, lies, and leaks. Examples include Bill O'Reilly who frequently shouts, points his finger, and refuses to allow those of a different view to finish their sentences. I,also, give little credibility to those in our present administration who fail to have accurate facts to back up their claims (WMD, Saddam/Bin Laden link, Nigergate, Mission Accomplished, Great Job Brownie, we are winning in Iraq, Slam/Dunk, we don't torture...to name a few of the very obvious non factual statements. When Joe Wilson exposed the uranium/Niger claim as being unsubstantiated....where was the debate, the facts, etc. from the "right" (a document that had already been exposed as forgery....before the 2003 state of union address)? This claim was one of the three used to justify the invasion of Iraq and instead of a factual debate with Mr. Wilson, we got planted "leaks" about his wife, Valerie Plame........and then the cover-up....and I assume more lies (this assumption is made because our President and vice-president will not honor subpoenas or allow members of staff to answer questions "under oath" only in private,with no record of what is being said. Not exactly the actions of one who has nothing to hide.

I, also,try to get a rounded viewpoint of current issues....we subscribe to conservative newspapers WSJ and the Detroit News, while reading the NYT and occasionally the Washington Post online, along with the BBC UK and the Guardian. On tv, we mainly watch PBS or CNN for news....occasionally Fox (which is way too slanted to be called news)and books written by those who have worked for both Republican and Democratic administrations. Over the past five years, reality (deaths, budget, hurricane damage, lack of WMD, the Downing str memo, etc.) has made it much easier to ascertain who has been telling the truth and what has been fabrications. Those on the right have lost a lot of credibility. We seldom listen to Rush or Ann C. when forming political opinions, as they are really more in the line of entertainers who appear to seek ratings thru outrageous rants.

Richard, although I don't agree with your opinions of certain radio and television commentators, I do agree with your statements about gentlemanly debate, without name-calling and personal insults.
If one has an opinion, then one should state it openly and be ready to debate it, listening to the other side's points.
When I was in High School many decades ago, we had a debate club, and we would debate current matters in the world. Point-counterpoint, is the name of the game. Personalities don't enter into it as long as the debator sticks to evidence, valid research, and essays.
Then, one may form an opinion, maybe a new one. The radical, shrill behavior of the Left in this country is remeniscent of another group many years back, who tried to conquer the world and lost.
I sometimes am concerned about this wild, raging speech, and wonder how long until it becomes physical acts of terror.

While I am a staunch environmentalist I deplore the never-ending habit of liberlas to label anyone that disagrees with them or offers a different opinion as a racist, homaphobe, or toss out insults and/or profane descriptions. This tactic does a great deal of damage to one's cause and is probably why many Americans consider those on the "left" as crazy nut jobs.

Talk radio is a product of the free enterprise system. No one forces people to listen or stations to carry a program. While I disagree with Rush Limbaugh and personally think he's an idiot, its a person's right to listen to him if they so desire. Quite honestly, I think Keith Oberman is as offensive and biased on the left as everyone here claims O'Reilly is on the right. I think its importanrt to read the paper, watch TV news, investigate on the internet, and on important issues listen to views from the left and the right. You cannot be truely informed if you stick your head in the sand and never listen to the viewpoint of the other side and take as Gospel whatever is said from those you always agree with. The ultimate goal is to persuade others to at least consider your point of view and hopfully adopt it. If you are clueless as to what the other side is saying on a topic and lash out and call them names, how are you going to ever get your point across?

There is a great deal of name-calling and labeling going on by those who seem to support the Left. Are you so without substantive debate skill that you must call names and label?
You have the gall to call newscasters liars, without debate or evidence.
Please, though don't let your lack of substance cause you to run in the streets tearing up private and public property.
What you really deserve is to win an election and then let the leftist officials ride you to riches. Your back will be mighty tired and you will be bewildered and shout, "Where is truth."

Smartypants88 is essentially making a strawman argument. This is the skill that GW has gotten so good at and allows people to say things like, "Is the 1st Amendment only be for liberals?" Hmmm, I don't remember anyone, liberal or otherwise, ever proposing that. However, I do remember Michael Savage, in his book The Savage Nation, calling hispanic immigrants "pests, like rats..." So what if he doesn't work for Fox? They all party together. So excuse me if I lower the bar of the debate by calling him racist, but that's what he is and I'm sticking to my story. If the Right Wing seriously wants to clean up the debate, they need to look in the mirror first and foremost. And then we'll talk. But they wont, because that would lower ratings, and that is really what this is all about. Ratings and money, baby, let's get real.

Hey Doug - Just how much dogmatic, ignorant, right wing bullshit can you fit in one post ? Geez, what an idiot !!

The far left extremists dominates the mainstream media tv and hollywood, the conservatives have AM radio. Would the tv execs and the hollywood elite be willing to give up their lock on these two outlets to be fair??? I think not. I follow the details and the facts, not political party agendas. The constitution and the Bill of Rights were not party specific. I am sick of both parties. I would first like to see all gun control supporting elected officials and candidates refuse protection from armed body guards (tax payer funded or private)and face the same criminal element as the rest of the taxpayers. No chauffers, private cars or jets. Just the public transportation. On the Global warming fad, it is a THEORY, based on short term selective evidence. Purposely ignoring solar cycles. I remember TIME and other sources crying Global freeze 30 years ago. So excuse me for not
goosestepping inline with Boris Yeltsin and Algor's scare tactics to bow down to the corrupt UN and give them world domination on a silver platter. Saving energy and the wise use of resources should be common sense to solve our problems as well as research into new technology in terms of production, storage and distribution. Taxing the US to give to 3rd world dictators to oppress their people and murder dissidents is not the answer.

The problem with the most vocal liberals, is how insulting they are to the people who disagree with them. I am a social liberal and a pro-defense conservative. I am not a racist or an idiot and I tire of the constant angry blasts that come from people who pride themselves on being tolerant, only to label those of us who disagree with them, as being stupid, or evil or racist. Stop the ad hominem attacks. Practice what you preach and be open to different view points. Why not get news from DIFFERENT sources so you can hear both sides, and then form a balanced opinion? That's the mark of an intellectually honest person, who doesn't bludgeon others with their opinions.

As for talk radio being conservative, (as if TV news people are not liberal), at least the conservatives admit to their view points. You never hear that from liberals, b/c they see themselves as being the ones who "really get it." Very elitist, condescending. If you don't like talk radio, turn it off. Is the First Amendment only for liberals?