O'Reilly suggested celebrities' support for Edwards is akin to that of serial killers Dahmer and Gacy
On The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly noted that Harry Belafonte had endorsed John Edwards and commented: "Oh, I guess that means Edwards has a lock on the Fidel Castro vote." After noting that actors Danny Glover and Tim Robbins also support Edwards, O'Reilly stated: "[W]hy don't you get Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy. ... Look, these people are so kooky."
During the December 10 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly noted that "polls show that most Americans do not care about celebrity endorsements" and then criticized Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards for the support he has received from several celebrities. After stating that San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has "admit[ted]" that his support for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "may damage her" in the general election, O'Reilly said: "And even crazier is [Venezuelan President] Hugo Chavez's best friend, [singer and actor] Harry Belafonte, endorsing John Edwards." O'Reilly then aired a clip of Belafonte proclaiming his support for Edwards and added: "Oh, I guess that means Edwards has a lock on the Fidel Castro vote," referring to the Cuban president. Later in the program, O'Reilly said Belafonte "is [late Vietnamese communist leader] Ho Chi Minh's second cousin, you know, in thought." After noting that actors Danny Glover and Tim Robbins also support Edwards, O'Reilly stated: "[W]hy don't you get [convicted serial killers] Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy. ... Look, these people are so kooky."
From the December 10 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thank you for watching us tonight. Celebrities endorsing politicians is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo."
[Talk-show host] Oprah [Winfrey] loves [Sen. Barack] Obama [D-IL] and took time out of her very busy schedule to endorse him in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.
WINFREY [video clip]: The reason I love Barack Obama is because he speaks to the potential inside of every one of us. Each one of us has a calling and a potential here on Earth to do the good and the great thing. He knows that.
O'REILLY: Now, polls show that most Americans do not care about celebrity endorsements, but I believe Oprah will help Obama in the primaries.
Surely, Hillary Clinton can't be too happy about this. Well, she's got support from billionaire Warren Buffett, who's also supporting Obama, hedging his bets a little bit. Senator Clinton also trotting out San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. That move is questionable, to say the least, as the mayor is a very far-left guy, Mr. San Francisco values.
Now, Mrs. Clinton knows that far-left votes in Iowa and New Hampshire are very important, but in the general election, even Newsom admits his association with Clinton may damage her.
And even crazier is Hugo Chavez's best friend, Harry Belafonte, endorsing John Edwards.
BELAFONTE [video clip]: I looked at his platform on education, health care, poverty, what young people are going through. And I have come to believe that he is the best candidate.
O'REILLY: Oh, I guess that means Edwards has a lock on the Fidel Castro vote. By the way, our pal Tim Robbins also endorsed Edwards, capping quite a weekend for him.
In making her campaign speech, Oprah Winfrey cited Martin Luther King. So looks like there's a civil rights component to her support for Obama. Buffett apparently believes that income redistribution is the way to go. He supports higher taxes for the wealthy. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama believe in redistributing income through taxation, so Buffett's support is understandable.
Now, all I can say about Edwards is that he has no chance. But after the primary season, he should hold a big party in his mansion, his huge mansion, his enormous mansion, and invite all his radical-left supporters. That'd be quite a display, wouldn't it?
Now, in the end, voters will not be swayed by celebrities, or the media, or even by political ads. These days, the one-on-one debates usually tell the tale, and I expect that will be the case next fall.
However, in the crazy primary season, Oprah and Buffett do matter, at least a little bit. And that's the "Memo."
[...]
O'REILLY: But you have to -- you both have to understand how powerful Harry Belafonte is in this country.
POWERS: Yeah.
MARGARET HOOVER (Republican strategist): It's like a Saturday Night sketch.
O'REILLY: Now -- hold it, hold it, hold it. You're John Edwards, Hoover, OK?
HOOVER: Yeah, OK. I'm putting it on.
O'REILLY: And you're living in this enormous mansion. And you're running around telling everybody there's two Americas, one for me, John Edwards, who lives in an enormous mansion, and one for everybody else, who lives across the street literally in a trailer park, whom I won't talk to.
So Harry Belafonte, who is Ho Chi Minh's second cousin, you know, in thought, he actually comes out for Edwards. And Edwards was embarrassed. He -- we saw Edwards. He, like, sprinted away from this, but that hurts Edwards, does it not?
HOOVER: You know, it hurts Edwards. But like Kirsten's saying, the point is that celebrity endorsements and this notion that they can actually change the vote undermines the credibility and the savviness --
O'REILLY: It undermines Edwards' credibility. You have Tim Robbins, Danny Glover --
HOOVER: Undermines the savviness of the American voter.
O'REILLY: Hold it.
HOOVER: American voters are smarter than to let celebrities decide who we're going to vote for.
O'REILLY: Hold it.
HOOVER: And I think we don't -- we lose sight of that.
O'REILLY: Here's John Edwards -- he's trying to win the nomination. He has no shot. He has a shot in Iowa because a lot of far-left loons going to vote in that primary. But he trots out Danny Glover, Harry Belafonte, and Tim Robbins.
HOOVER: It's like the warm-up act for Obama, isn't it? It's like [unintelligible]
O'REILLY: Yeah, I mean, come on, Powers. Why don't you get Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy --
POWERS: [unintelligible] go that far.
O'REILLY: Look, these people are so kooky.
POWERS: Look, they're very far left, but I think that it's pretty consistent with John Edwards' theme.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Dangerous territory Bill. I thought you didn't do smears?
Yeah Bill Never does Personal Attacks. This one is even bad for him. Its uncalled for and disgusting. I hope he apologizes. He does not like the views of Glover and Robbins so he equates them with Serial Killers. So sad.
Far right loon Bill's silly comments and behavior is getting worse by the day. His show-and him-is showing signs of age as well.
There will be some changes made at Fox News in 2008. I hope those changes include releasing Bill from his contract.
O'Racist, as a typical boot licking reich-winger, never EVER apologizes for their innately fowl, vile, and perverse behavior.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
I would not brag about my party, although I promote them relentlessly, my prime interest in the RESTORATION OF OUR REPRESENTATIVE FORM OF DEMOCRACY, AND THE RULE OF LAW.
Purposely, I am redundant.
The constant throng of 'far left" this and "far right" that reduces vital issues, and threats internally to our democracy. The branding of people for their beliefs neglects the discussion of the dirty little or big details where the devil does reside.
A Sc_muck is a Sc_muck, so don't take him seriously when the time comes to be serious.
After the past 7 yrs, we are 7 yrs overdue to be serious!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Yes, we can tell how reliable this bunch is that controls the WH now. War for as far as the eye can see, soft on Iraq political machine so we can keep spending our treasure, on and on into infinity, U S debt up to the ears of every man woman and child, an economy on very shaky grounds, total disregard of the Geneva Convention protection for detainees, besides the military costs there is the rip off of U S treasure by their buddy contractors like our Veep's old Halliburton buddies, non-prosecution of a rape committed by a Halliburton subsiduary employee, on and on. This bunch in the White House has sullied the name of our country and it will last for years to come. We need to be VERY careful about which candidate we elect this time in light of the foul mess they must set about to clean up. Give me a simple white house peccadillo every time instead of these crimes against humanity that this present WH bunch has committed.
"Hugo Chavez's best friend"
"Ho Chi Minh's second cousin"
"far-left loons"
"these people are so kooky"
Move along, no smears here.
I don't think there is any argument anymore that O'Reilly opines without smears, he does it with regularity. That isn't the issue here, however.
Wouldn't you just love to see these right wingers bash MLK Jr. if he was still alive. Which they most certainly would. Of course Tommy, Sue & Co. will deny it, but all of their heroes (O'Reilly, Limbo etc.) would most certainly call him a terrorist, commie, traitor and the right wingers who post on this site would agree.
I think that there were plenty of right wingers who did that back when MLK was alive. I wasn't around back in those days, but I have read tales told. And worse, those folks were out to kill, and did assassinate MLK. At least with O'Reilly, Limbaugh, et all, they are ALL bluster and barking, and if they were ever confronted with physical violence, they'd probably wet their pants, and fall into a corner crying and weeping loudly.
Oh, yes, William F. Buckley, Jr., Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan HATED King's guts and said some of the most vile things imaginable about him. Rick Perlstein wrote an incredible article about this in the New Republic a few years ago. If I find it I'll try to post it so others can read it.
Not to mention he was shot for being, well, black, and for fighting for his rights. That's pretty darn hardcore stuff right there.
i'm sure al gore sr. and sen. byrd were mlk's best buddies!
O.K genius. You know why southern states stopped voting for Democrats? The civil right movement. Racist people in the south turned against liberals because they were...well liberal. You know equal rights, equal opportunity. LIBERAL VALUES Like Those. Go Stick Your Head In A Toilet Bowl.
That is why we have so many Republicans in the South. The voting Rights act was too much for them to tolerate so they left the solid south Democratic party. And guess what, most are still racists.
i'm sure al gore sr. and sen. byrd were mlk's best buddies!
*Yawn* Typical con response. King had issues with many people, even tepid liberals who told him that he shouldn't push too hard for Civil Rights (hence, his famous Letter from Birmingham City Jail, [1963]). Nevertheless, some of the most outspoken critics that hated his guts were conservative heroes, i.e., William F. Buckley, Jr., Ronnie Reagan and Barry Goldwater. Hell, Pat Buchanan STILL speaks unkindly of King, calling him a “divisive figure.” At least Buckley FINALLY admitted a few years ago that he was wrong for his opposition to the Civil Rights Movement and King. However, the three ICONIC conservatives I mentioned had more influence and impact on the conservative movement than anyone, and their hatred of King has been well documented by many historians.
I should rephrase that and say that King had issues with tepid "moderates" rather than "liberals." There's a great distinction between the two, For example, Alan Colmes is what I call a “tepid moderate,” the kind King criticizes greatly in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail.
Interesting Preston. I would say that Dr. King if alive today would likely be a social moderate. I would base this on the fact that he was a man of faith first and a social activist second. He wrote that he became "so enamored of the insights of liberalism that I almost fell into the trap of accepting uncritically everything it encompasses". It is quite interesting how Dr. King struggled with liberal orthodoxy in the church and traditional orthodoxy. He in the end sought to find a medium between the two. In fact, he indicated somewhat of a disdain for a total liberal approach to church ideology. Wouldn't it be safe to say that if this was the approach he took with the most important aspect of his life it would also envelope his ideology about social issues. Harry Jackson wrote an interesting article in TownHall.com about his belief that King would be a social conservative. I wouldn't go that far but I think that a man so rooted in faith and christian doctrine would not be completely a social liberal. His ideas on family, God, marriage, personal responsibility would mirror his religious convictions rather than a secular liberal approach. Just my two cents though, I would be interested in your thoughts.
Hey Chris,
King a moderate if alive today? I don't know about that. I've read a lot of his speeches and writings, and from what I read, he was pretty radical even for today's standards. I wouldn't take what writers at Townhall.com has to say about him, because conservatives for the past twenty years or so has tried to co-opt King and convince people that he was really a conservative rather than a radical liberal. (Which is funny because the man was killed for the simple fact he was threatening to the status quo.) It's easier to romanticize about a man who died for the rights of others than to write about a current "troublemaker" that's outspoken about racism and social injustice today. For example, conservatives love to quote King's "I Have A Dream" speech, particularly the section about "judge the person by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin." True, we all should follow that sound advice, but by that same token, King also said in the same speech that the ghettos will never rest until America faces itself and eradicate the root cause of systemic oppression. Coretta Scott King noted that he was for programs such as Affirmative Action, something that conservative revisionists fail to note, too. Conservatives like to speak a good game about King NOW; however, if he was alive today, he'd probably be as hated as Sharpton and Jackson -- even though he's far above those two in terms of setting out strategies and blueprints to challenge the status quo. He wasn’t simply a rabble-rouser like those two. Nor did King bash poor blacks and used theories about their "pathology" for the cause of their poverty. Like W.E.B. Dubois before him, King understood that "pathology" has no color, and the conditions that many victims of poverty faced laid at the footsteps of many powerful elites. Thus, King wasn't a blind optimist.
I would also advise conservatives to read more of King's writings than his "I Have A Dream" speech. He spoke a lot about race-based programs -- something that conservatives outright oppose -- that would benefit many minorities. Here's what Wikipedia has to say about King close to the end of his life:
King began to speak of the need for fundamental changes in the political and economic life of the nation. Toward the end of his life, King more frequently expressed his opposition to the war and his desire to see a redistribution of resources to correct racial and economic injustice. Though his public language was guarded, so as to avoid being linked to communism by his political enemies, in private he sometimes spoke of his support for democratic socialism:
“You can't talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can't talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You're really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry… Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong… with capitalism… There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism.[12]”
King had read Marx while at Morehouse, but while he rejected "traditional capitalism," he also rejected Communism because of its "materialistic interpretation of history" that denied religion, its "ethical relativism," and its "political totalitarianism."[13]
Impressive as usual Preston.
While my knowledge of King is not nearly as thorough as yours, nor is my disposition as scholarly. I would add a tiny tidbit to further temper the notion of King as a modern day conservative. And that is the fact that the Memphis bus boycott was also about workers rights. It was as much about organized labor as it was about equality for black people. People forget that aspect of the civil rights struggle. King believed in the power of collective will as a means to foment peaceful change. It's hard to imagine him abandoning such bedrock principles.
Also the perception of faith and the faithful are so radically different today than in King's day. Faith and values, Christianity itself has been politically leveraged from the hands of the many and rebranded as the sovereign domain of the conservative minority. Who's to say that had King lived that Christianity would have been so entirely redefined by the right? I know that's pure speculation, but then so are the many pontifications that recast King as a modern day social conservative.
Hey Roundhouse,
Thanks for the kind words, by the way. I'm not scholarly though! Just someone who enjoys reading the history of the Civil Rights Movement. (Plus, I'm a bit of a sociology and political science buff.) And you're exactly right -- the foundation for the Civil Rights Movement was to dismantle job discrimination -- along with gaining voting rights for minorities. Job discrimination was the key component that kept many blacks in the ghettos since they had to accept menial jobs. Surprisingly, Pat Buchanan wrote in one of his books that A. Philip Randolph and Booker T. Washington were correct when they spoke on how the huge number of blacks that moved to the North during the Industrial Revolution were denied jobs that went to the influx of European immigrants that came here, even when many blacks and their ancestors been here for since the 1600s. It's this omitted fact that created the ghettos in many cities we have today. In fact, when A. Philip Randolph and Bayard Rustin organized a March on Washington in 1941, the main proposal were equal opportunity in the job market. Of course, the march was cancelled at that time due to Franklin D. Roosevelt signing the Fair Employment Act. But as many scholars noted, the Fair Employment Act did only little to bring blacks into the job market. Ira Katznelson wrote a great op-ed piece about this in the Washington Post in 2005 during the aftermath of Katrina.
You raise an interesting point on the role of Christianity in the Civil Rights Movement. Goldwater, Reagan and Buckley weren’t the only conservatives that demonized King. Jerry Falwell opposed King and painted him as a communist. Falwell was an arch segregationist during the 50s and 60s, but with the success of the Civil Rights Movement, he learned a few tricks from King in galvanizing working-class Christians and building a strong grassroots protest movement. I think if King was alive today he would be totally disgusted by the Christian Right and its tactics to demonize gays and others. Bayard Rustin was one of the most important figures in the Civil Rights Movement after King, and he was an openly gay man. Coretta Scott King remembered this which prompted her to support gay rights -- that and how morally repugnant it is to ostracize gays based on their sexual orientation. I think the black church would have an entirely different image and set of principles today if King was alive than today.
Preston and Roundhouse, I am in awe of you guys. Great posts.
Thanks Julia, I appreciate that. I'm just a wannabe compared to the majority of posters here. Still I don't get much lofty praise here. So I'll take it and thank you again.
Just a follow up. Compared to Strom Thurman Gore Sr. & Robert Byrd might as well have been Black Panthers
Finally I was able to have a giggle. What a descriptive way of saying it. Keep up the good work
And don't forget that Strom was a Democrat who switched to the repubs after the civil rights act, like many racist politicians of his time.
Where on this thread did I call OReilly my hero? I did not , why did you lie about me? Did I not condemm OReilly? Why the lies?
Sueeld I was reading through this thread and you never once announced that Bill O was your hero, you actually supported this MMFA piece and placed the blame where it belonged,on Bill O. The conduct of some of the posters on here to now engage you for your thoughts on other posts is not only irrelevant to this topic but disgusting. They do not like that you have views that are sometimes against the grain here and sometimes with them, so they will continue to try and slam you down. Its outrageous but your views on this topic are correct and supported by me. Why others who are critical of you now seem to think is ok to derail the topic for petty banter is very disturbing. Many act all high and mighty but act as trolls.
yeah when I see a bs post like your's I do tend to move along. As like when O'Liar appears on my tv my remote works overtime.
BTW TJ. Your fairly brilliant posts always elevate the discussion here. Just wanted you know that you're appreciated in light of the Sue's and Tommy's and Jeters that take us task on a regular basis (and keep us on our toes since they represent a logically flawed but necessary opposition- this site would be lesser without them -- hell we'd be talk radio!).
Sloppy . . . meant "take us to task." My apologies.
Obviously O'Reilly took an analogy and ran over the edge with it. But his point was that far leftists like Belafonte and Robbins' support for Edwards was hardly going to get him votes, whereas Oprah's support for Obama certainly has more resonance with voters. His opinion, his hyperbole, but a fair broader point, nonetheless.
What was the analogy? I don't believe that this is an example of an analogy. O'Reilly said that these people support various presidential candidates, and then said that the candidates may as well have mass murderers endorsing them. I don't see an analogy there.
O'Reilly was comparing those who express a political opinion he doesn't agree with with committing a heinous crime against humanity.
Tommy was apparently apologizing for him.
There was no analogy there, heck, O'Liar probably doesn't know what it is.
He was commenting on the "kookiness" of these two actors' political opinions by saying their worth to any candidate is probably a negative, not a positive - so he might as well have the other two he mentioned. Of course it's hyperbole and exaggeration.
A word of advice my friend:
When you're in a hole, stop digging.
Thanks, but if you're up there, I'd rather be down here.
That's obvious. You spend almost all of your time down there.
Right, which makes you the conservative that we all know that you are.
Tommy -
Bill O is like a big, bulbus pinata just waiting to get wacked.
Your larger point may have a lot of merit since Edwards celebrity endorsements will probably not make much of a difference with most voters.
But not everyone can have Oprah in their camp! (Maybe Edwards is just scraping the bottom of the barrel with these guys!)
But not everyone can have Oprah in their camp! (Maybe Edwards is just scraping the bottom of the barrel with these guys!)
Mike Huckabee dug THROUGH the bottom of the barrel for his endorsement by Chuck Norris.
Well, if you have the Texas Rangers on your side... no one messes with Cordell Walker!
if you mean a barrel of whoopazzz...
Hey Huckabee also has Rick "Nature Boy" Flair doesn't he? That one is a knee slapper.
Come on Julia. I expect more from you. Get his title correct, you know those righties love their titles. He's The Nature Boy Rick Flare. WOOOOooooEEEeeee..ahh!
Ah, I can tell Roundhouse is an old school Wrestling fan. hehe.
Who is Ted Nugent backing? That ought to bring in some votes for some lucky Gop slopper.
enough with apologism Tommy. This is rank and so are you if you don't care to acknowledge a partisan attack by a partisan who claims run a "no spin zone." The fact that he claims to be fair and balanced is an out and out lie. He's a liar and therefore will never prosper. :>)
Tommy I do not see that point of Bill argument at all, I saw this as an attack on two private citizens based on the political beliefs they have.
....and thats exactly what it is. But Tommy's default position is to defend O'Reilly, for some bizzare reason...
Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about. I beat up on O'Reilly here all the time.
Before you post so foolishly in your typical knee-jerk fashion, better bone up on your facts.
Yeah, we've seen a lot of that, especially today's threads. You are absolutely savage with O'Lielly.
/<snark>
I know, to most of you it isn't really valid criticism unless their name is changed to a slur, i.e O'Leilly...
You need to get outside some, T-boy.... seriously, your contributions are getting worse every day...
Hello nerve, you've been touched......
I beat up on O'Reilly here all the time.
Present one example from the last two days. If you do indeed "beat up on O'Reilly here all the time, that should be easy.
If you think I am going to waste my time beyond this response, you're mistaken.
I could care less what you believe, so if you care to check past O'Reilly threads for my opinions, be my guest, or not, it doesn't matter.
If you think I am going to waste my time beyond this response, you're mistaken.
If you would only honor such promises, you'd have shut up a long time ago.
Actually I meant waste my time "on you", but considering I am not in a bitter mood, I will include you in the above posting as well.
So you won't feeoh so negwected??
You just can't help yourself.
If you actually ignored everyone you've lost an argument with (and by lost, I mean responding with insults and childish remarks rather than responding on point) you'd end up talking to yourself and the handful of other conservatives who repeatedly pat you on your back for your nonsense.
ohhhhh zing im glad im not the only one lol
Tommy spends every day posting on a liberal website because be doesn't care what we think........okay......
"I beat up on O'Reilly here all the time."
So, you supposedly "beat up on" him all the time, and yet you repeatedly accuse MMFA of "bashing" him. Interesting.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Tommy would make the greater point in his view that because Mr. O'Reilly points out obviously that Oprah would have a greater effect on the electorate than Mr. Belafonte, or Mr. Robbins.
Thus in Tommy's World comparing two sincere activists/artists to two serial killers is just hyperbole, and not to make anything of!
I again, and patiently I point out that Mr. O'Reilly has the public pedestal, the platform afforded him by a media mogul with an unapologetic agenda that is (tongue in cheek) suppose to be treated as "Fair and Balanced." This Tommy is deceit, and masked as "News" from a serious commentator!
This they do with the nation's approval, and license!! I think the time has come that the foot comes down on this kind of abuse come '08.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
So you're suggesting that Fox News' license be revoked because you don't like what their commentators have to say on their own opinion shows?
Of course. fast and furious will come your word parsing defenders to say that is NOT what you are saying at all, but it is in fact EXACTLY what you are saying, for 08.
But hey, liberal intolerance for opposing viewpoints is sincere activism on its own.
I don't think FIXED NEWS requires a license since they're a cable propaganda outfit. No one here objects to conservative or partisan news as long as they identify themselves as such and not "fair and balanced."
Word parsing defender #1
And read my response more carefully, I am not talking about NEWS, I am talking about commentary - huge difference.
hmmmm? I've always thought The Factor was the number one rated primetime "news" show? And Billo does go on and on about his "reporting" and "accuracy." Maybe it's just me. Sorry Tommy for deigning to be an informed poster. I'll try to do better -- really I will!
I'd love if there was a T.V channel to balance Fox News. But considering no corporate T.V station would ever let that happen I won't hold my breath. Also I have more respect (not sure that's the word I'm looking for) for Fox News than CNN or MSNBC. Fox is blatant right wing corporate misinformation. CNN & MSNBC(G.E) on the other hand are corporate propaganda disguised as news.
Ah yes, the old canard that "lib'ruls want to suppress free speech!!", or more generally, "surpress any opinion they don't agree with!"
Wrong as the day is long. We, unlike the right, WELCOME open debate on FACTS.
We just don't think LIES count as "free speech", nor should they be treated respectfully as "opposing viewpoints". They aren't- they're lies.
When lies are presented and treated as facts, people get confused and become unable to debate based on FACT, because they simply don't KNOW what the TRUE facts are. This goes for both sides.
This is the entire problem with the FAUX network and their shows. O'Reilly is no different in his "No Spin Zone", with it's touted "accuracy". They present his show as fact. It isn't. It's partisan zealotry- you don't need to go any farther than "far-left kooks" to understand that. The lack of objectivity is plain and obvious.
A significant portion, if not the vast majority, of FAUX viewers do not know the difference between "commentary" and "news"- this is by design. This is why it seems like those who watch FAUX exclusively live on an entirely different planet in an entirely different universe. That's not at all conducive for debates on fact as Americans, rather than R or D.
THAT is what "us lib'ruls" want to eliminate- "news"/"commentary" presented as fact on EITHER side. The public needs to know factual information, not spme Pravda-ized version of it. I think *everyone* will agree on that- D, R, I, whatever.
Really, that was the whole point of the Fairness Doctrine.
If a network such as FAUX needs to entirely change it's programming and business model, well, so be it.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
- tommy / Tuesday December 11, 2007 05:34:47 PM EST
Now, that is hyperbole!!
Free speech is calling Mr. O'Reilly a comedien, or talk show host, not a NEWSCASTER!
By categorizing his show as NEWS, which is a public service requirement, although loosely, for their licensing.
So yes, I do think FOX's license should be subject to revokation! We as a democracy should not be facilitating propaganda as a public service requirement to deliver comprehensive news as a licensee!
I don't think that is an abridgement of free speech, it presumes to separate NEWS from TALK SHOWS. The Fox News or any news on any network should have a reasonable standard for the viewer to know when they are being informed, and when their being preached to, or even brainwashed.
Fox blures the lines to make them little more that a propaganda outlet!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Analogy? Who would ever think being analogous to serial killers as being something funny, or even pertinent. Unless of course the person that were being compared were a serial killer him/herself, but since this isn't the case, the analogy, as you say, is really not pertinent at all.
I'll take FAR LEFTISTS (ohhhhh) Tim Robbins and Mr. Deyo over Far Right Corporate Lapdogs Bush(The guy you voted for twice Tommy, remember?), Murdoch, O'Reilly and Anne (McCarthy) Coulter.
Wait, wait, wait
Why is this here?
MMFA stop smearing Bil O
MMFA stop with the hate
Damn MSNBC
Oh and damn Keith and his WPITW
That should cover the next 2 pages.
Pearlene not really sure what your point is? Can you discuss the topic or are you trying to derail it for some reason? And I wont hold my breath.
Pearlene not really sure what your point is? Can you discuss the topic or are you trying to derail it for some reason? And I wont hold my breath
*LMAO*
Did you see yourself in that post?.
Holy ironies Batman!
Sueeld scolding someone for taking a topic and thread off subject?
That's the best laugh I've had all day.
I am glad you find comparing American political activists being compared to Serial Killers funny, at least something makes you laugh.
No, what makes me laugh is you scolding someone for taking a thread off topic. Because it's what you do in almost every thread you post in.
I don't find it funny that anyone is being compared to serial killers, and if you got that from my post, reading comprehension classes must be taken in order to full remove the ignorance from your reading of my comments.
I do not take anything off topic, i find it ironic that it is off topic when you disagree with me. Also what does my posts on other subjects have to do with this one?
You don't post things about keith Olberman in other threads that are not even remotely about him? I could have sworn I've seen that before.
Knock it off, we are on subject here and now you guys are doing exactly what you accuse her of.
Nah, I was just responding to what she responded to before.
Bill O is a POS for saying this.
How's that for on topic?
wow, way to go Sue. In no way were they laughing at what BillO said, they were laughing at you.
Oh, knock it off, Sue! You know very well what you do on every single thread and now you're trying to turn the tables as if it's OTHERS -- not you -- who derail every thread with your Olbermann obsession. Or why everyone is smearing this person and hating that person. Don't act innocent and naive. And then when someone call you out on it you change your tune as if you're innocent and being attacked.
Everyone needs to knock it off. Sue is right on THIS ISSUE, why change the subject and attack her? KNOCK it off. Its so annoying how threads get thrown off track with petty arguments.
But, but... She started it...
Sue is a man......that's on topic right?
Sue, DON'T GO THERE!
Oh Sueeld give me a freaking break! There have been too many times I've seen you, personally, take a thread off topic because of your obsession with KO. Would someone please pay KO enough money to ask Sue on a date so she will get over this? ;)
Sorry
I did not see myself with that statement. When BO or others attack others with that type of comparison its serious.
I think irony is over some folks head, Paulenne
Pearlene not really sure what your point is?
Yours is obviously hidden by your hat.
Pearlene, you are cracking me up today!
Hey there Juliajayne, you've been missed.
Excuse me my lovely ladies, but y'all must not have heard that you need to know your place!
Funny stuff Pearl, but it probably won't "stop it", that KO thing is a real obsession as is playing the victim.
Lynn, so true and I know better, but after 4 pages of Sueeld on another Bill O thread I couldn't help myself.
While Dahmer and Gacy are a bit beyond the pale, perhaps Edwards ought to get the endorsement of some of the individuals for whom Bellafonte, Glover and Robbins serve as mindless apologists, such as Castro and Chavez.
Last time I checked (at approximately 10:45 this morning), Chavez and Castro were NOT US citizens, and therefore have no means to vote, or really affect this election cycle anyway. Last time I checked (9:32AM yesterday), Castro hasn't done anything to the US in all of the years that he's been in power. Sure, he let the Russians park a few missiles, but those were taken away.
Tell me; why is Castro such a bad man? Why, in your opinion, is Chavez such a bad man? Why do you not rail against the Chinese in all of your posts, because they are far worse then either Castro of Chavez put together, but the yearning for cheap goods in the US can keep this quiet.
For the record, once again, Chavez doesn't hate the US, he hates George W. Bush.
If we opened trade with Cuba again, the rule of Castro would probably come to a quicker end.
Why not the chinese? Well, the subject article concerned BO's comments about the movie stars supporting Edwards. Castro and Chavez come to mind because they are the world leaders who these actors seem to think are standard-bearers.
I wouldn't say I hate Castro and Chavez, as I thankfully have never been subjected to their rule, but I hate what they stand for. The main reason is, that in the country's over which they rule, particularly cuba, their tyrannical regimes would never even allow its citizenry to do what is so often done on this website -- that is, strongly criticize the government.
Cuba maybe, but Chavez does not rule his country tyrannically, and doesn't impose sanctions against people who have strong opinions against him.
I know, next you're going to say he closed down all the TV stations that were saying bad things about him, this is blatantly not true. What those stations that were briefly taken off the air were doing, were promoting treason and a coup.
Chavez was democratically elected, and enjoys high poll numbers in his country, from his people that he is President over. Saying that he is tyrannical, or something even close to a dictator is blantantly wrong, and false. Look at the big rebuke that his country gave him just a week or so ago when he wanted to change their Constitution, he was slapped down by the voters, and had to take his lumps and go home.
Why do you think Chavez is some sort of crazy anti-American dictator, when he isn't one? I'm not saying he's top notch in the world, but a lot of the press that he gets in the US talks about him in this way, and perception has become a reality unfortunately.
Castro on the other hand, yes.
For the record, I enjoy your posts, even if you don't mine. You seem willing to have fun debating, rather than insulting.
Anyway, your're correct, my impression of Chavez is gleaned from the American media. He is portrayed in an unfavorable light by both the "leftwing" and the "rightwing" media. There seems to be no political conspiracy in denouncing him, as democrats (rangel, biden . .) routinely tell him to take a hike.
Perhaps my willingness to believe the media in this regard is a bit unwarranted, but tell me, from where do you get your information that dispels how Chavez is portrayed on networks like CNN
You act like you dont like insults yet call the liberals in this site nuerotic and unstable. You are a hypocrite and a fool. You are just another whiny snivelling crybaby conservative that loves to trowel OUT the insults and then cry like a baby when they are turned back on you.
Of the top 9 oil reserve nations, the 4 with the poorest economies or weakest governments have all been demonized by the Bush Administration - Iraq, Iran, Vezuala, Libya (though Libya is officially out of the "axis of evil" since late 2005).
Now you see the connection and reason for Bush's lies or exagerations regarding Chavez? (Venezuala is probably 3rd on the list of invasions after Iraq and Iran.)
tyrannical regimes would never even allow its citizenry to do what is so often done on this website -- that is, strongly criticize the government.
Ironic, because if what so many of the regressives who post here and elsewhere got their wish, no one would be allowed to criticize this administration.
And given that a number of Chavez' "reforms" went down in a blaze of glory two weekends ago, I guess that not only are Venezuelans allowed to criticize their gubmint, but they're allowed to vote against the administration as well.
Thomp.Steve,
Do you LIKE what GWB stand for? Please answer, I am not asking rhetorically.
"perhaps Edwards ought to get the endorsement of some of the individuals for whom..." WC4ME/THOMP.STEVE
As opposed to Republicans who give their support to tyrants like Musharef? Or to Saddam Hussein (before, that is, Republicans needed to punish some Arabs, any Arabs, because they dropped the ball on 9/11?)
Please. Your crackin' me up. Stop. As if a candidate can control who their message appeals to.
And again you're intentionally equating disgust for Republican policy with disgust for American values. Lame dude.
mindless appologists because you disagree? You dont have HALF the IQ of Glover OR Robbins. You never will.
OReilly went overboard on this one. To even suggest that Danny Glover and Tim Robbins have any relation to these serial killers because of political beliefs makes me wonder what is wrong with Bill O.
Now MMFA is correct to discuss topics like this, there is validity in them.
Sigh. BO makes it so easy to dislike him. Well he need not worry I will happily obligle him in that regard. To compare any of those celebs to Dahmer is disgusting. I noticed he didn't mention Chuck Norris and his support for the Huckster.
That would be too easy for BO to do, after all Chuck Norris is a regular on FAUX.
Dorris,
Yeah I know it's wishful thinking that BO could actually show some common decency or tell the whole truth. Actually I'm not even sure if BO even knows what that is or even how to do it.
Shocked, its shocked I am. Sue and Tommy on topic, and worthy in content.
Somebody bury up to my neck in a red anthill, and pour honey on me.
She even complimented MMFA and didn't once use the word "hate."
My gosh! what will Olbermann say about this?
Tonight I would hope Olbermann mentions this and even gives him the WPITW Award. I can not believe how outrageous this is. To call people who have different political views "Serial Killers". Horrible
I know I was bad for bringing it up, hope you don't mind when I'm teasing?
I love it how O'Reilly will have people on for a discussion and they're either sitting around in an echo chamber, with only wink-and-chuckle style debate, or O'Reilly is literally yelling at them. In this case, we've got the echo chamber.
The lefties on mediamatters are unstably obsessed with every word uttered by BO. It's a disturbing sign of their neurosis that he still can get them in an ecstatic uproar by every offhand (even if entirely inappropriate remark). It's like they sychophantically comb everything BO says, morning through night, so they can find a few words to feed and please the angry, partisan, lefty base
The lefties on mediamatters are unstably obsessed with every word uttered by BO.
Are you for real? You see nothing wrong with comparing these two actors to Serial Killers?
Of course it's remarkably stupid to compare some actor to a serial killer, and any reasonable human being realizes that it's an absurd analogy. That BO's an idiot makes absolutely no difference to me, and I don't care what he says. It's just a bit amazing, and even comical, that you get so outraged over what he says, particularly when the folks on here scream at length about how meaningless BO is
You know, I love these meta-meta-comments. It really makes me feel like Alice going down the rabbit hole...
But seriously, O'Reilly is not an obsession for the "left," Any more than Hillary is an obsession for the "right." Oh wait, I think I just contradicted myself...
That right-wingers may be obsessed with Hillary may indeed be true, but I am not of that crowd. However, are you admitting that left-wing hacks are obsessed with BO?
"However, are you admitting that left-wing hacks are obsessed with BO?"
Maybe they should try a different deoderent?
*rimshot*
And maybe Bill should change his name to something similiarly Irish like Shawnessey so his initials will be BS?
*rimshot*
Let me see if I'm understanding you correctly Steve -
So you're saying you're pro-serial killer?
Of course it's remarkably stupid to compare some actor to a serial killer, and any reasonable human being realizes that it's an absurd analogy.
Shoulda stopped right there.
In other words WWWAAHHHH leave him alone, WWAAAHH let him spew this BS without exposing it WWWAAHHHHHHH
What is obsession about fulfilling your mission statement? These type of pundits have been getting away with this B.S. for years and when someone finally calls them on it, it's call "obsession?"
This site ain't perfect, but it has already proved its value which is a helluva lot more than I can say for ANYONE over at Faux News.
No, the hyperbole frequently posted regarding BO's comments often are trite and meaningless. Take the article under which we now are posting, for instance. I watched the BO show and saw this particular segment. (I seriously don't particularly like the well, but in a demented way that's why I watch).
The comments that has people up in arms was an offhand remark at the end of the segment. Sure it reflects on BO's lack of character, but it had entirely nothing to do with the substantive debate that took place in the segment; namely, whether and which movie stars will benefit a candidate . . .
To scrutinize only a few irrelevant words that were entirely immaterial to the "debate" is ridiculous. Is that the mission statement of Mediamatters? I don't know, because I haven't read it
"I don't know, because I haven't read it"
*shakes head* Of course you haven't. You should- it might clear some things up for you.
No its NOT ridiculous. He said them. THEY are outrageous. They should be exposed. What point are you getting at exactly that what he says at the END of his program ought to get a pass? That if he makes sense for an hour then he gets a chit he can turn in to be EXEMPT from being criticised for churlish behavior? Oh, I see, THERE WAS NO POINT.
So, here is the main problem with your comment. For a long time, when right winged windbags, and bloviators such as Mr. O'Reilly would make this crazed statements, and a bunch of people would actually get on board with him, and agree with him, there was nobody out there to refute, or even bring up what he was saying. This goes for O'Reilly, and or his other bretheren that so dominate our airwaves.
I can then assume that you're in the position of, and in the club of, "Nobody really listens to what Bill is saying anyway, so it's no big deal, just let it go, and nobody will remember it." Which is wrong, it's just wrong. If you let someone get away with something time and time again, then they'll keep doing it, and in the frame of Bill O'Reilly, he'll keep framing his opinions as facts, and shout down anyone that disagrees with him, so that in fact the other side of the story, and normally the facts of the story, don't get out, so that the people watching his show take what he says as gospel, no matter how destructive and or inane his comments are.
You are right about one thing, we are angry, and why wouldn't we be? We've been called everything from traitors to terrorist supporters ever since Bush got into the White House, you wrote such a comment yourself yesterday on a different thread if I remember correctly. These things have been thrown at us for quite some time, through the 90's up to the current state in time. If someone called Bush a terrorist supporter on a major news network, what do you think would happen? The right wing would fall all over themselves, and probably try to launch investigations into whoever said such a thing.
We can't, and won't allow people like O'Reilly to get away with saying stupid, misinforming, and ignorant things while using OUR airwaves. The only way to do such a thing is to call him out. On this website is just one small way to do that.
It always amazes me that folks who, I assume, represent the right wing to a certain extent come here and tell us what we should, or should not be upset about, in how we are portrayed and or talked about in the media at large.
You go magnolialover! (I luv your posts)
Progressives might think BIllO's words are too absurd to take seriously, and so no one is listening - but believe me, for many people he is still the "cultural warrior" hero he makes himself out to be. More and more rats are jumping off the sinking ship, but the battle is not yet won.
The guy is good at what he does really, with his fair and balanced act. You have to watch him a looooong time before you see the pattern - and how unfair and unbalanced (in more ways than one) he really is.
thomp.steve9098: Righties have no neurosis? If you want to see someone's face flush 10 shades of purple and the veins popping out of their forehead, just try bringing up names like Clinton, Gore, Olbermann, (I could go on) in converstation with a rightie.
Exactly.
I was listening into Neal Boortz this morning, unfortunately, and the first thing he launches into, first thing, is he starts ripping in on Hillary for being such an awful, dishonest, disloyal, and just awful awful person, and how he has been hoping and praying that she gets the nomination, because that could be his show for the entire year of ripping on her.
Of course, he gave no mention of why she was so horrible, or why she was such a bit-- (his words, not mine), just taking the normal talk radio show line on her. And then, he goes on to claim he's no republican, he's a liberterian. Yeah, OK, and I'm a middle of the road democrat.
Actually, the first thing he talked about was this website, and how his normal every day banter didn't warrant any mention on here, and he was mad about that. So, is he not only mad that he gets mentioned on here, he's also mad that he doesn't get mentioned here.
The man is a kook (sorry Bill had to use your wording).
Wow, I can't figure out how any right-wing media pundit would mention this website on their show. I mean, look at BillO - his MMFA rants on his show must have gotten more viewers to this site than anything that we could have done ourselves.
It's strange how U.S. media works when it comes to politics. I bet there aren't 1/2 the number of conservatives who watch or listen to progressive shows as the other way around. But if you think about it, it makes sense - they are usually the ones who refuse to listen to anything except their side of the story. It would be like a Christian Googling "Athiest"- blasphemous and unthinkable. The indoctrination and brainwashing of the right is backfiring on them big-time right now, as truths are made known and free-thinkers amongst their ranks are enlightened (pissed about being duped is more like it). Same thing happened to another right-wing regime in 40s Germany that I have in mind.:)
Thomp.Steve,
Do you truly think O'Reilly is accurate and honest?
Let me translate from Wingnutese. WWAAAHHHH stop showing what a moronic boob my hero O'falfel is WWWAHAAAAHHHHHHH why do you have to show what a jerk he is WWWAAAHHHHHHHHH.
No we dont obsess nor are we unstable. It is YOU that is a crybaby conservative who wants us to ALLOW his lies, stupidity, insults, and hypocrisy pass without comment. It fits YOUR whiny agenda if we DONT give the other side of his propaganda, that we DONT expose his lies or his hypocrisy. Get over it. The left isnt going to lie down and take it anymore. He lies, he spews hypocritical insults we expose them. NOTHING you have to say about it.
Boy, O'Reilly goes unhinged whenever someone dares utter the name Edwards. Edwards frightens the Right more than anyone, including Obama and Clinton. I like Edwards and would support him in a heartbeat, but I think they would paint him as a far-left radical the same as they did McGovern.
No, Preston. Edwards would be a far left LOON. Get your wording straight. ;-0)
And look at who's call other people kooky.
LOL! Doh! How can I forget, LOON is O'Reilly's favorite buzzword along with PINHEAD. *smacks forehead*
By the way, it's good to see you, Julia. Missed seeing you around here. ;)
By the way, one thing that I always find funny about conservatives when they talk about celebrities--it does seem to be true that most Hollywood celebrities are liberal (Streisand, Clooney, Penn, etc.) so most conservative commentators always rail on about "who cares what these Holloywood types think anyway, especially since Hollywood is just an un-American cesspool of sin, yada,yada, yada." But when a celebrity actually endorses conservative values they either are held up immediately as having something to say (e.g.Chuck Norris), or given their own right-wing shows (Dennis Miller), or more often than not, they actually become candidates themselves (Thompson, Schwarzenegger, and of course, the right's all-time media darling--Ronnie Reagan). The fact is conservatives go ga ga over any celebrity that actually looks in their direction, so their constant attacks against celebrities as not having anything worthy to say is rather comical.
You may have a point, but there's still a distinction. A hollywood conservative is an anomaly, almost an oxymoron. To come out and support a democrat takes no courageous in hollywood, as all your doing is preaching to the choir and pleasing your colleagues. But to come out and support a conservative is unpopular in their world, and takes a bit more independent thought and backbone. Independent thought because they just don't fall in line with the rest of their liberal associates, and backbone because they may be jeopardizing their hollywood connections which are essential to their vocation.
OK, so the celebs that support Conservatives are BRAVE and INDEPENDENT THINKERS, while celebs that support Liberals are cowards that don't think for themselves.
Gotcha. Glad you cleared that up for us.
I did not say that being an outspoken liberal hollywood actor is cowardly. In response to the other comment, I'm saying that outspoken conservative actors are rare, and it likely is more uncomfortable for them to voice their views as the minority.
Ever get tired of playing the victim?
That's not very convincing. There's plenty of Hollywood conservatives. Bruce Willis, Patricia Heaton, Kelsey Grammer, Drew Carey, Arnold, Chuck Norris roll right off the top of my head. And I don't recall the blacklisting of Hollywood celebrities during the commie scare being carried out by liberals.
Anyway, are you going to allow us to infer that the lack of open conservatives in Hollywood has more to do with their cowardly, self serving ambition than principles? Or are you going to agree that politics takes a back seat to talent and box office appeal?
You are spewing NONSENSE. What price did Bruce Willis, Tom Sellek, Charleton Heston, Ron Silver, or Arnold Swartzenegger pay for being conservatives in Hollywood? Thats right NONE. Do you EVER have a valid point?
The lefties on mediamatters are unstably obsessed with every word uttered by BO. It's a disturbing sign of their neurosis that he still can get them in an ecstatic uproar by every offhand (even if entirely inappropriate remark). It's like they sychophantically comb everything BO says, morning through night, so they can find a few words to feed and please the angry, partisan, lefty base
We also randomly punch kittens, babies, and puppies--whichever is in closest vicinity--every time the name O'Reilly is uttered. Pfft. Get real. As much as you'd like to characterize all of us as crazed, hysterical, whiners, we actually have real, productive lives beyond this site. Or maybe you underestimate how easy it is to access the Interent and type text?
The far left...
I hear that and just block out the rest because it'll be the same old tired meme about hating America and being secular blah blah!
I do the same thing whenever I hear someone refer to the democratic party as the democrat (sic) party. The conservative talk show hosts are so ingrained in it, that when someone corrects them on it, they don't even miss a beat, and just keep saying it. I even heard Boehner call the democratic party the democrat party today. And to even take it a little further off topic, Boehner was also talking about how bitterly partisan the democrats were in Congress since they took over.
Is that guy serious? I almost ran off of the road when I heard him say that. If they are, and they're really not since they keep giving Bush almost everything that he wants, it would be proper retribution after the republicans bent them over the barrel for so long. What a joke Boehner is. As someone else says on here, he doesn't even know the name of the largest political party in the US.
I don't know, I'm proud to be on the far left.
I'm a card carrying member
That O'Reilly, he's so kooky, why don't they get someone like Josef Goebbles was to criticize Hollywood celebrities? He was kooky, too!
Edwards might have the support of Dahmer and Gacy but I've heard that Stalin and Lenin are behind Rudy.
Ed Gein has thrown his support behind Mitt Romney.
WK PMSL!!!!! Translation: Peed myself laughing. This is a banner day not only do we have Valentinian back we also have the wonderful JuliaJayne back as well.
JJ blushing at that remark, MD. ;-)
Agreed MD, good to see them back.
Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy - BillO sure mentions these guys a lot. I bet he had their autobiographies at bedside during his phone conversations with Andrea Mackris.
well, gacy did do a lot of work with chicago democrats....
Yeah, but his twisted obsession with young boys & his having lived a morbid, double life put him squarely in the Republican fold.
"Buffett apparently believes that income redistribution is the way to go."
Nice, Bill. Suckle at the teat of conservative bilionaire Murdoch while casigating liberal billionaire Buffett. At least Buffett's philosophy is somewhat evolved and seems to be concerned with the welfare of others. WWJD?
Does Bill O' ever put his brain in gear before he opens his mouth? His statement seem to be getting more and more nonsensical all the time. He is a one-trick pony who's act is getting old. One of these days he will insult someone with the money and power to sue him for everything he is worth.
Give me a break. Mediamatters and all its loyal thought zombies are a joke. I've been reading and participating in the little exchanges on here for about a week. And the intellectual shallowness of the comments is remarkable, save for a few. All revolve around how mean, brutish and bullying are conservatives, and how poor rich liberal types, like Glover, Edwards, Clinton, etc . . . are so unfairly victimized by offensive comments from the right.
You lefties thrive on insisting the victim status, and then self-righteously proclaim that your arguments must be correct because the other side has been sooo mean.
In accord with the new liberal agenda, concerning the "fairness doctrine," mediamatters cohorts only wish to listen to opinions that tow the line with the liberal base. All other views are shunned and sarcastically dismissed because you partisan hacks lack the intellectual vigor actually to engage in meaningful dialogue.
I read this site because I'm entirely willing to listen to other views, and am always questioning my own. That's good intellectual exercise, which the blind faithful of the left should try sometime.
Right. You just keep on telling yourself that, pal. Amazing, the way you conservatives apply your tendencies to your "enemies". It's really quite amazing, although it's easy to understand where it comes from.
Rovian Strategy 101- accuse the enemy of what you know you yourself are guilty of- make your weakness theirs.
"you partisan hacks lack the intellectual vigor actually to engage in meaningful dialogue"
But WE'RE the ones that attack, and we "lack intellectual vigor" and are "loyal thought zombies". Uh huh.
Tell us, what color is the sky on your planet?
Tell me, mediamatters disciple, have you watched the segment of O'reilly's show from which the above excerpt was extracted? Have you read his book that has been so gleefully ridiculed on this site because the torture-embracing Dershowitz gave it a poor review?
You guys simply pat each other on the back for coming up with clever, insulting comments. My point with the last comment is that everybody on here posts the same thing -- 'big, bad, mean, dumb conservative." That's it. It's like listening to middle school kids tease a classmate.
And again, when someone critizes the left, the criticism cannot be valid because some cruel man like Rove must be behind it, right? That's about the best it gets on here. When legitimately criticized, simply point to some other 'bad' man's conduct. Very thoughtful you are!
I make more insightful cogent arguments on a good day than you will EVER understand in your LIFE you moronic twit.
Also, claiming that "we're on the attack" is shallow in itself, and proves my point. Partisan hacks don't want to debate and win over their opponents with the intellectual force of their position. They'd much prefer to shout over their opponents, attack and demean. That way the hacks can disredit their opponents without actually showing why the hack is correct and the other position is misguided. I thank you sincerely for providing an example.
Right, hacks...both on the left and the right. However, I haven't seen too many of those "hacks" coming from the left. Most seem to be relatively grounded in objective reality, as opposed to the neoconservative dreamworld that most hacks on the right seem to inhabit.On a side note, I don't think liberals really have a problem with conservatives. They have a problem with neoconservatives, as everyone should be. There's a big difference.
Oh please. You're correct that there are hacks on both ends of the spectrum, but the intolerance of unfettered dialogue displayed by the left is unmatched. I don't go for neocons either, and my views probably are more akin with those of a Pat Buchanan (probably even worse from this site's perspective). But like it or not, there are many, many neocons in this country, and simply demonizing them hardly is the appropriate tactic with which to rebut their views.
Debate them like Buchanan does, and tactically point out their erroeneous views. All the partisan hacks on the left do is call them mean, fascists, emperialists, and on and on. By this point the objections from these partisans are nothing more than platitudes, and that reality undermines their position not only in the view of the neocons, but among the leading democrats as well.
Why do the two leading candidates on the democratic ticket only whisper to expecting ears their support for the progressive agenda? It's because the partisan base of the progressive movement has rightfully earned the reputation as being virulent radicals, intolerant of moderates and independents. And reasonable, moderate democrats realize that towing that line will get them nowhere
Why do the two leading candidates on the republican ticket only whisper to expecting ears their support for the conservativeagenda? It's because the partisan base of the conservative movement has rightfully earned the reputation as being virulent radicals, intolerant of moderates and independents. And reasonable, moderate republicans realize that towing that line will get them nowhere.
There, fixed that for ya'.
Have you been hibernating the last few months. The leading candidates, presuming you mean guliani and romney, have been screaming their conservative credentials at every opportunity. Both continue to vie with each other over who can be the "loudest" conservatives. Whether they're genuine or not, they certainly are not at all uneasy about proclaiming how decidedly conservative they are.
The same cannot be said about obama and clinton, who again, always seem uneasy about sharing views of the partisan left. Not because they disagree with the views, but because the intolerant, angry spokesmen on the left, together with their websites, are so far removed from the mainstream.
Please illucidate on a specific issue: Say Guiliani on abortion.
For one, when mayor he supported the appointment of many pro-choice judges. Now he vows to support judges of the ilk of scalia and thomas. Hint to pro-lifers and conservative base, wouldn't you say. Two, news this week, that from presiding over a so-called sanctuary city while mayor, he now say that if he had it his way, all illegals in nyc would've been deported. These are views held by the conservative base. I don't like guliani so I have no problem saying that he is pandering, loud and clear
OK, so we've established on this particular issue, Guiliani is a pandering flip-flopper or a liar.
Please now select an issue where Clinton or Obama has acted similarly and where they are "hiding" their progressive views due to "far-left radicals".
"...but the intolerance of unfettered dialogue displayed by the left is unmatched."
Except for the likes of the rightwing AM talkers and the websites like Freeperville and the gang at Fox news and the columnists like Ann Coulter, you hava a poi....Uh wait I don't see any examples coming from you. I only see unsupported angry rants.
My angry rants? No my friend. I love coming to this site simply to provoke and then marvel at the angry rants of the loonies on here. (Sadly you fall into that category). Coulter and that gang don't get angry when confronted by the ilk from mediamatters, dailykos and moveon types. They just laugh at you guys and your ire. All your self-righteous indignation at their offensive words (cover your sensitive ears) is comical.
Check yourself. You act so innocent. "Who? Me? Indulge in insults and wild misrepresentations? Ha ha. Never." Please. That's hillarious.
You said of the Progressive left, "The same cannot be said about obama and clinton, who again, always seem uneasy about sharing views of the partisan left. Not because they disagree with the views, but because the intolerant, angry spokesmen on the left, together with their websites, are so far removed from the mainstream."
Not angry? Not a rant? Sure.
While you fail to truthfully cite any values, principles or positions Progressives hold you conveniently ignore that Edwards, Kucinich, Dodd and Richardson embrace and express their Progressive views on a regular basis.
But go ahead and continue to denigrate the members of the grassroots and netroots communities, it just reveals your apprehension over the movement that has gotten underway to reclaim our country from the corporate suck-ups and market fundamentalists on the right.
So in other words you are an ignorant troll who KNOWS he cannot HOPE to engage in an actual dialogue and just want to provoke us like a childish moron. Yeah we already knew that. Your stupidity made it clear you had nothing else to offer.
Sure nothing like the tolerance of a Coulter saying liberals should be beat with baseball bats or Savage saying liberalism is a mental disorder. You are so full of BS I bet your eyes are brown. What is certain is your ignorance is pretty impressive. Stupidity like yours is impressive. You are projecting and stupid and offer NOTHING of substance or worth.
There WAS no point you arrogant moron. You have been attacking us and not making points for about six or seven posts now. Pure projection and ignorance. Did you think if you were condescending enough you would intimidate us? Your IGNORANCE may be awe inspiring but it makes you only an object of pity nothing else.
Thomp.Steve,
You say that you regularly examine your opinions. How often do you come to believe your opinions were WRONG?
You REALLY are stupid arent you? Did you really just make the argument that because we ONLY want to listen to one side we support the doctrine DEMANDING that both sides be heard? You are ignorant. Your insulting posts are worthless. Your stupidity is apparant to anyone that can read. You want to talk about us when you are so ignorant I am shocked you can use a keyboard. Rent a clue moron.
Your rebuttals are great. Your rhetoric is a prime example of the neurosis of which I spoke earlier. You fiendishly call my posts worthless, dumb, moronic, and call me the same Yet you need respond to all of them. Do my opinions offend you so. I'm so sorry mr. or ms. sensitive.
I, to the contrary, feel no need to respond to all of your platitudes. Admittedly there are some very intelligent people on theses "threads." who's opinions are well-thought and worth listening to. You, however, express nothing thoughtful. Obsessively calling someone dumb and worthless is deranged, and usually arises as a result of an extreme lack of self-confidence. I pity you.
Thomp.Steve,
You haven't responded to either of my questions, and I hope you do.
1. Do you like what GWB stands for?
2. You said you often self-examine; how often do you come to the conclusion that opinions you hold have been wrong?
Have Glover & Robbins supported dirty phone calls? NO? No wonder Falafel hates'em.
Oprah might be different but most celebrity endorsements are a blight on the Democrats. IMO, Bruce Springsteen hurt John Kerry. He has his fans but what percentage of the public are Springsteen fans? Maybe 5%? And to the rest of public he's kindof antipathetic.
Uh-huh. And well-known Neanderthal and child-molester Ted Nugent endorses Gomer Huckabee. Yeah, yer right -- celebrity endorsers don't count. Unless, of course, they are sentient.
Bill "sexual harasser" O'Reilly strikes again! The once and still king of the loofah's doesn't stoop to personal attacks and smears! No, never.
It's a good thing for O'Reilly that celebrity endorsements don't help a politician. Who are Bushs' big celebritys? Shannon Dougherty and Brittany Spears???
"Look, these people are so kooky."
Bill O'Reilly calling people "kooky". This from a guy who harasses women on the phone while using a vibrator to get off. The fact that this degenerate piece of human filth still has a job, and has the gall to write books for children after being busted for using a feminine sexual device while achieving an orgasm while harassing a woman, speaks volumes to how far-right this country as gone! This sick republican scumbag should be locked up, yet in bizarro world he calls other people "kooky" and is still hasn't been fired or put in jail!
If faux news offers their employees mental health coverage it's time to place O"liar into inpatient therapy. the fool is a loon.
I am trying to understand this. O'Really is equating Danny Glover, Tim Robbins and Danny Glover as being the same as and/or equal to Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy or is he equating John Edwards to these killers? You have O'Reilly, Hoover and someone named Hoover, any relations to the vacuum cleaner? Sitting around comparing Edward's' supporters to serial killers. Isn't that sweet. Is O'Reilly saying that John Edwards is a traitor to his economic class?
Wow, this guy is so shameless & it's truely unbelieveable that he gets people to sit there & go along with him , to agree with him. Harry belafonte? Who the hell is paying any mind to Harry Belafonte. I am librel, I am left & I would have no idea that freakin Harry Belafonte is endorsing John Edwards until I heard it from BillO. Jeffrey Dahmer? John Wayne Gacy? What a nonsequiter. What do they have to do with this? How are they related to anything mentioned. Meanwhile Rudy gets the Pat Robertson endorsement. Talk about the loons, you may as well trot out David Koresh or Jim Jones. That relates to the subject better than Pat Robertson.
Disgusting, Bill. But disgusting is nothing new for you.