In interview about Daily Kos, O'Reilly called Dodd a "propagandist," declared, "I don't have any respect for you"
In an August 1 interview with Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Chris Dodd (CT), which aired on his August 2 radio and cable television shows, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly, called Dodd a "propagandist" in response to Dodd's defense of the website Daily Kos and stated, "I don't have any respect for you," and, also during the interview:
- O'Reilly repeated his false claim that he takes any objectionable "postings" off BillOReilly.com "right away." As Media Matters for America documented, several objectionable comments about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) remained on his site as of 1 p.m. ET on August 1, despite being highlighted by Americablog.com more than a week earlier.
- When Dodd said that O'Reilly had previously "talk[ed] about Al Qaeda attacking San Francisco and blowing up San Francisco," O'Reilly did not deny saying it, but rather challenged Dodd to name "when" and in "what forum" he had made the comment. After Dodd said he believed it was in 2005 on O'Reilly's television show, O'Reilly responded, "No, you're wrong. I didn't say it here. You don't know what the hell I said, with all due respect." He went on to complain that Dodd "got it from Media Matters." In fact, as Media Matters noted, on the November 10, 2005, broadcast of The Radio Factor, O'Reilly, reacting to San Francisco's passage of a ballot measure urging public high schools and colleges to prohibit on-campus military recruiting, said that, if he were president, he would tell San Franciscans that "if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead."
- After Dodd mentioned an Indiana University study which found that, on average, O'Reilly engages in name-calling once every 6.8 seconds during the "Talking Points Memo" segment of his show, O'Reilly asserted that "we" had "discredited" the study -- although his producer's attempt to do so was thoroughly flawed, as Media Matters documented.
During the interview, O'Reilly demanded that Dodd repudiate Daily Kos and its YearlyKos convention, citing a "vile" cartoon about Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-CT) on the website. In response, Dodd noted that hundreds of thousands of people participate in the Daily Kos community and said: "My point is you are not being candid. Your objection is to this community gathering. You don't like their politics." When O'Reilly again said that the site was "vile," Dodd replied, "There are a lot of things that you say on a daily basis that I find vile, to be honest with you." Dodd said that "of course" he did not approve of the "cartoon," but added, "[T]hat's not the issue here," to which O'Reilly replied: "Of course it's the issue. That's what they do. That's what they do on the site. They do that hate stuff all the time." Dodd later said, "The fact that there are objectionable people who show up here on this site doesn't discredit everyone else who participates in this in a wonderful way to share their views on a variety of subjects." O'Reilly responded: "[Y]ou talk about being disingenuous. Your description of that site is so opposite from what it is and anyone who's been on it knows the hate that they peddle every day. ... You are so dead wrong on this and you ought [to] apologize to Lieberman."
After airing the interview on the August 2 edition of The Radio Factor, O'Reilly said that Dodd "legitimizes what's going on there" and, citing his own comments about San Francisco, said Dodd "doesn't even know where I said it. He takes the propaganda that's handed to him -- I don't think he's ever seen The O'Reilly Factor." O'Reilly added, "I don't think he's ever even gone to the Kos." O'Reilly went on to ask co-host Lis Wiehl if she had visited Daily Kos and she answered, "I have. ... It's awful. It's awful every day." Pressed by O'Reilly to say whether Dodd "is lying" when he defends Daily Kos, Wiehl agreed: "In my view, yes, because it's just so horrible."
Later that day, O'Reilly re-aired the Dodd interview on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor. Afterward, he said that he is "always disappointed when people come on with propaganda like Senator Dodd did," and asserted that Dodd "obviously didn't know what I said about Al Qaeda in San Francisco." O'Reilly's then replayed his August 1 interview with comedian Dennis Miller, who said he was "a little disappointed" that O'Reilly "would give a hack like that a toe hold" by hosting him on his cable show, adding, "I must tell you as a viewer of the Factor, I don't need to hear from hacks like Chris Dodd." O'Reilly later declared that Dodd had gotten "smacked right back" and said, "I didn't like to do that to a sitting senator, I have to tell the audience. It does not give me pleasure, but I certainly have to do it."
O'Reilly concluded that he "didn't know [Dodd] was going to be dishonest" and claimed that Dodd had "pandered ... so he could get an 'atta boy' when he goes into this hateful thing over the weekend." Miller replied, "You know something? ... That convention is a loser fest. I mean, there are hookers who have put an embargo on that convention."
From the August 2 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: In The Factor "Follow-Up" segment tonight, a viewer warning. We're going to show you a hateful picture posted on a far left website, the Daily Kos, so you might want to change channels right now. As you may know, we've been reporting on most of the Democratic candidates attending the Kos convention this weekend. Despite the fact that website is full of hateful postings including this picture of President Bush and Senator Joseph Lieberman, which has been on the site for a year.
Now, yesterday I spoke with Senator Chris Dodd, who is running for president and will be at that convention.
[begin video clip]
O'REILLY: You know, you've known Senator Lieberman for 30 years. He knows President Bush. I'm sure you respect both men as patriots, and you see something like this, why don't you distance yourself from it, sir?
DODD: Well, what I'm stunned at; Mr. O'Reilly, is the fact that you spend as much time here going after an online community gathering where there are 500,000 people who visit that site on a daily basis, here. To identify five, six, seven, eight objectionable, offensive cartoons or comments that people are making, here, I find that rather stunning, to be quite honest with you, here.
O'REILLY: Well, I mean, you know this is the worst stuff on the Internet. There isn't anything worse than his.
DODD: Just let me finish -- this is a place -- this is a place where people can -- you're missing the point. You ought to be far more candid with your viewing audience, here, and tell them that your real objection here is the ideology of Daily Kos --
O'REILLY: No.
DODD: -- not what's on the air. This is silly, this is silliness for you to be suggesting --
O'REILLY: If you went to the --
DODD: -- 500,000, 500,000 people appearing on that site --
O'REILLY: Senator.
DODD: Let me finish. Here, 500,000 people every day on that site. Why are you attacking something like this? It broadens the debate, allows people to --
O'REILLY: Because It's vile. It's vile.
DODD: That's why?
O'REILLY: It doesn't matter how many people go in, go out, have a cup of tea.
DODD: There are a lot of things that you say are vile on a daily basis. Am I --
O'REILLY: What about that cartoon, Senator? What about it?
DODD: No, no, no, no, no -- listen.
O'REILLY: What do you mean, "no, no, no, no, no"? It's up there for a year. What about the cartoon, sir?
DODD: Mr. O'Reilly. Mr. O'Reilly, you're not listening to me, here. Mere point is you are not being candid. Your objection is to this community gathering here. You don't like their politics.
O'REILLY: I don't like their website.
DODD: That's the legitimate criticism here. Why don't you focus on that and recognize that 500,000 people a day.
O'REILLY: All right, I'll ask you the question again. You OK with that cartoon, sir?
DODD: Of course not. That's not the issue, Mr. O'Reilly.
O'REILLY: Of course it's the issue.
DODD: No, no. You're going after --
O'REILLY: That's what they do. That's what they do on the site. They do that hate stuff all the time.
DODD: No, no. You suggested -- you suggested that we ought not participate in the convention --
O'REILLY: Correct.
DODD: -- because six, seven, eight, or 10 people here have said something on this site that's objectionable --
O'REILLY: Eight or 10 people? What are you, crazy? There's thousands of vile postings on that website. Thousands.
DODD: Look, Mr. O'Reilly, there are thousands on your posting, as well, every day, I might add.
O'REILLY: No there are not. There are not any on my website.
DODD: Oh yes there are.
O'REILLY: We take them off right away.
DODD: Talking about Al Qaeda attacking San Francisco and blowing up San Francisco.
O'REILLY: When did I say that, Senator?
DODD: That's not offensive?
O'REILLY: When did I say that?
DODD: You said it in 2005, I think is correct?
O'REILLY: When? Where? What forum? When?
DODD: Right here, I believe, on your own show.
O'REILLY: No, you're wrong. I didn't say it here. You don't know what the hell I said, with all due respect.
DODD: No, I don't think so.
O'REILLY: You got it from Media Matters.
DODD: Focus on the legitimate criticism.
O'REILLY: You didn't hear it and you don't know what I did.
DODD: Focus on your legitimate criticism.
O'REILLY: Look, you're a propagandist, Senator. You're a propagandist.
DODD: No, no, no, no, no
O'REILLY: I used to respect you. I don't have any respect for you, and if I were Joseph Lieberman I would never talk to you again because this is vile and you're legitimizing it. You're legitimizing it.
DODD: Well you're not Joseph Lieberman. You're not Joseph Lieberman, and if you would sit there and just be honest about your criticism, here, rather than focusing on a few specific instances that everyone I know would find objectionable. That's not the issue here. The issue is --
O'REILLY: The issue is you're legitimizing a hateful website.
DODD: Can I please finish? Can I please finish a thought with you, here? That you object to the fact that 1,500 people are going to gather in Chicago representing hundreds of thousands of people who utilize this community gathering, this community site, as a way to express their views every day --
O'REILLY: It's hard to believe.
DODD: -- which is not a bad way to do this.
O'REILLY: It's hard to believe.
DODD: The fact that there are objectionable people who show up here on this site doesn't discredit everyone else who participates in this in a wonderful way to share their views on a variety of subjects.
O'REILLY: OK, OK. [inaudible] Little Bo Peep fight? Look, you talk about being disingenuous. Your description of that site is so opposite from what it is, and anybody who's been on it knows the hate that they peddle every day. Look, Senator, I appreciate you coming on here --
DODD: Mr. O'Reilly, Mr. O'Reilly.
O'REILLY: -- I appreciate it. But you are so dead wrong on this, and I'm going to give you the last word. You are so dead wrong on this and you ought to apologize to Lieberman.
DODD: Indiana University -- no, no. Listen to me. Indiana University has suggested that once every 6.8 seconds you say something derogatory --
O'REILLY: Yeah, and we discredited it. It's bogus.
DODD: Let me finish. You make derogatory comments about individuals and groups once every 6.8 seconds. That's nine times a minute. That's your history here. Go after the ideology.
O'REILLY: And you believe that? You believe that?
DODD: Let me finish. That's a legitimate point for you to attack the ideology of Daily Kos but don't --
O'REILLY: It isn't a legitimate a point. It's a bogus study. We've already discredited it.
DODD: Don't suggest here, don't suggest here that this is real debate you're having about Daily Kos. You object to the ideology. You are using a few instances here --
O'REILLY: A few --
DODD: -- that everybody would find objectionable as a way of saying we ought not participate.
O'REILLY: All right.
DODD: That's terribly wrong in my view.
O'REILLY: OK. I want everybody to go to that site and remember what Senator Dodd said and make up your own mind. And there go, Senator --
DODD: Good. 500,000 visits a day.
O'REILLY: They'll make up their own mind. We appreciate you coming in and taking the fire though.
[end video clip]
[...]
O'REILLY: After we spoke with Senator Dodd yesterday, we spoke with Dennis Miller, who was listening to the interview. As usual, Miller had some insights. Roll the tape.
[begin video clip]
O'REILLY: You know, I am always disappointed when people come on with propaganda like Senator Dodd did. He obviously didn't know what I said about Al Qaeda in San Francisco. He didn't know what program I said it on. It was fed to him. But he and others are basically defiant, and they're going to do what they want to do. Didn't -- never addressed the picture and the morality of the picture, just kind of sloughed it off like this is not what is prevailing on this website, which is just absolutely untrue.
MILLER: Well, let me tell you, you're disappointed in him. As a fan of The Factor -- and when I'm not on I don't miss a night -- I'm a little disappointed that you would give a hack like that a toe hold.
You know, these people aren't going to come on and debate on Fox which is the pre-eminent cable news organization in the country, if I am to believe your ratings that I read on your Internet, probably eight times when the Daily Kos gets on any given day.
O'REILLY: Sure.
MILLER: For you to let him come in and sandbag you like that, I must tell you as a viewer of The Factor, I don't need to hear from hacks like Chris Dodd. OK.
O'REILLY: No, no, no. Wait a minute. That's interesting. And I know I'm going to get mail that says you are right on that.
But look, he comes in, and I want people to see him no matter what he said. If he denied, denied, denied, which he did. You know, you would think he was talking about the Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm website, you know, from his description of it. It was totally inaccurate, totally not true, and people can see for themselves.
But I have to present these guys to the American public as best I can. Now certainly, he was challenged every step of the way.
[...]
O'REILLY: But don't you think most people see that? Don't you think that when he comes on and does that and got smacked right back -- all right -- and I didn't like to do that to a sitting senator, I have to tell the audience. It does not give me pleasure, but I certainly have to do it.
Don't you think the audience then does exactly what you do, sees through it, knows the game, and then basically says this is what is going there?
MILLER: No. I don't think most of your audience does. I think you'd be better off having [Rep. Dennis] Kucinich [D-OH] on. Because as much as I am not voting for Dennis Kucinich, I have to admire that he takes a stand, and says his piece and at least has some policy.
O'REILLY: Kucinich is welcome at any time. But this is the first time Dodd has ever been on.
MILLER: This guy had nothing. Bill, this guy had nothing except standing up to you, who they assume to be the symbol of the right wing and all that. And he was boring. He was tedious. He doesn't know anything about you.
O'REILLY: And it will be interesting to see if people agree with you or not. I think it's worthy to put them on. And I think it's worthy, when they spout stuff that isn't true, to challenge them. And I don't think it was a boring segment, Dennis. I've got to disagree. It wasn't boring.
MILLER: I don't think it was boring. But I think Bob's hairs--
O'REILLY: Everybody is going to be talking about it tomorrow. But you may have a point. Putting on -- and I didn't know he was going to be dishonest. I actually thought he would engage in the -- in the picture. Because he knows Lieberman for 30 years. Yeah, he turned on Lieberman in the election. But you're right, he pandered, and so he could get an "atta boy" when he goes into this hateful thing over the weekend.
MILLER: Yeah. He'll be a big guy. You know something?
O'REILLY: No, he won't.
MILLER: That convention is a loser fest. I mean, there are hookers who have put an embargo on that convention.
From the August 2 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: Now, as we have been reporting, in Chicago this weekend there is a convention sponsored by this website the Kos, which is hateful. It has a cartoon that's been posted on there for a year of Senator Joseph Lieberman [I-CT] kneeling in a sexual position before President Bush. All the Democratic candidates with the exception of [Sen. Joseph] Biden [D-DE] are going, and Biden wants to go. So, they're all in the same soup.
Now, why do they -- why are they going? They are afraid of this outfit -- they're afraid of them. Now [Sen.] Chris Dodd [D-CT], you probably didn't know this, is running for president. You know, it's no shock, you know, the guy is -- and I don't' respect him so -- I mean he just -- whatever he's doing, he's doing. Anyway, he came in and I wanted him on the show because he knows Lieberman -- he's a senator from Connecticut, so is Lieberman, he's known Lieberman for 30 years.
Now Dodd turned on Lieberman in the primary, which is why Lieberman had to run as an independent. Dodd supported the far-left candidate last November, Ned Lamont, who lost to Lieberman and I'm sure that Lieberman didn't appreciate that after 30 years.
But anyway, they've know each other for 30 years, and this cartoon is vile. I'll show it again tonight. I've already showed it once on TV, if you haven't seen it. And so Dodd comes in, role the tape:
[...]
O'REILLY: And the average person who goes to that website stays there one second.
WIEHL: That's it?
O'REILLY: One second. Now, you know, what are you going to do with a guy like Dodd? What are you going to do? You make up your own mind. You know what that is. You know, I mean, this guy legitimizes what's on there. He's supposed to be a leader? He's running for president? I mean, you know -- I mean, "You said that San Francisco should be attacked." The guy doesn't even know where I said it. He takes the propaganda that's handed to him -- I don't even think he's ever seen The O'Reilly Factor.
WIEHL: Doesn't sound like it.
O'REILLY: I don't think he's ever even gone to the Kos. That's what Miller said, Dennis Miller. We have a Miller interview about that interview coming up tonight, too. But, look, be that as it may, be that as it may, there is no question. You have no one in any leadership position speaking out against hate in America today. No one. You know why? They're afraid. If one of those Democrats were showing up at that despicable convention said I'm not going because of that Lieberman cartoon, they would kill him on that website. They would tear that person to pieces. That's why they are going.
They're afraid. So this website has intimidated the Democratic leadership in the United States of America. That is frightening, and that's the power of the net. That is the power that these people have.
Now, you've been to that website.
WIEHL: I have. I just was looking --
O'REILLY: Is Dodd -- is he lying?
WIEHL: It's awful.
O'REILLY: OK, so he's lying?
WIEHL: It's awful every day. The crap that's on there, excuse my language, that's on there today I can't even say it.
O'REILLY: So, Dodd is lying?
WIEHL: In my view, yes, because it's just so horrible.
O'REILLY: OK, He has to -- he's either -- you can cut him some slack if he hasn't seen it.
WIEHL: Exactly, if hasn't gone on.
O'REILLY: But then he's got to say he hasn't seen it.
WIEHL: Go on, please.
O'REILLY: You know, what he said in that interview is flat-out false and you go there right this second and prove it to yourself.
Dodd is a phony, this is a man that sucked up to the racist Imus for years , I lost respect for him then.
lol Sue...
Although I don't mind Dobbs, I am 100% sure I won't be voting for him... I am leaning towards Obama, but if he can't get out of the mess hes in with Clinton then chances are he won't win the primary...If he loses I am hoping for the Bloomberg/Hagel ticket or if I absolutely must vote Rethug than Ron Paul seems okay to me...
I would agree with you about Bloomberg, he would be perfect for America. Too bad the left and right will do anything to destroy him so they can keep power.
Yep Sue....
I am getting more and more intrigued about Bloomberg, I have many family members who live in NY and think he is swell. I happen to agree with his stances on a Large number of things(I am pro-gay rights, pro-chife(a mix of pro-life and pro-choice principles lol), and am very unsupportive of the war in Iraq). He seems very keen on border control, and controlling our budget as well...I just wish he would abolish pork-barrel....I absolutely abhore it and think it is nothing more than Bribery....
Sue , I do not know much about Bloomberg but if he could stop the war and the partisan divide then he would be good.
Doris I agree about the war , I am not sure if anyone however can stop it right now
Sueeld, I agree, we have gone to the point no return and I am not sure any President could stop the war now. Its sad.
It doesn't take a President or Congress or the courts to end the occupation of Iraq.
It takes massive civil disobedience to end the occupation of Iraq.
We are so scared of losing our jobs and drowning in debt that we just can't feel secure enough in our livelihood to devote time to protest. That's the problem with a dog eat dog, you're on your own model of society: the absence of a shared social safety net perpetuates the intimidation of a politically active citizenry.
Roundhouse, I Agree I remember being out there protesting in March of 2003 hoping we could change the nations thinking. Sadly it took awhile. Keep raising your voice !!! This war is immoral and criminal. Sorry if I went off line on this one.
Translation...the absence of government run programs resembling a socialist system is a big problem. I wish the government would take care of me and all the downtrodden.
When's the next Freeper Troll on The MMFA Message Board meeting?
That's just too funny.
Your position boils down to the fact you can't refute that Republican policies have been disasterous for Americans. So, you decided to call me, in essence, socialist-lite. I understand, though. In Republican world calling the left socialists means automatic victory.
Hooray for, LoLo! The Right wins again.
I really have no idea what LoLos points are other than blanket statments that are backed up by nothing. He or she says Kos is hate , I ask to provide specific things that are hate and there is no response. As I have stated before calling a site "Hate" is dangerous. OReilly should be ashamed.
To people like lolo the repeated association of negative emotional language to liberalism is their only concern.
It's a tricky dilema.
Trolls don't deserve a response; they spin threads into post after post of irrelevant tangents.
On the other hand, to leave their frames out there without reframing them toward reality, unfortunately, after repeated exposure to them, patterns of acceptance are established in the mind.
Unless dishonest frames are deconstructed with stories and real world examples, their themes become commonplace. They can become accepted as common sense even though they are undeniably false.
Take for example how conservatives and many liberals accept the free market frame at face value. Republicans have pushed the assumption that the market works best when left alone because it is a natural force for the good of all.
We know that's false. The market is a human invention and has been limited by the people for the good of the people.
Child labor, slave labor, worker beatings, harmful pollution, monopolies etc. have all been excluded from the market by law for the very reason that the market is not a natural force for good.
What's your take on it, Doris? I could be utterly wrong. lolo might just be looking for a negative response.
I'm with you on much of that - even in the same order. Frightening, ain't it? I don't know much about Bloomberg, so I can't say either way.
As for Dodd, I lost much respect for him regarding his work on the bankruptcy legislation. It was purely a gift to the Banking industry and an attempt to circumvent the predictable consequences of their highly suspect practices (like overuse of subprime lending) at the expense of regular Joes as far as I am concerned.
That said, Dodd shall now predictably be banned henceforth from the O'Reilly Factor for having ill-manneredly informed Emperor Bill that he hasn't any clothes on. What a pity.
Biden is guilty of this as well and just one of the reasons I can't support the candidacy of either one of them. But it was just so lovely seeing someone from the left stand up to BO's non-sense for a change even if it was a cynical political move as Tommy has declared it to be.
What did he stand up to exactly? the Daily Kos is a joke and it's just what Bill said it is. The fact that the dems are giving that organization credibility is truly sad.
and the evidence of your point is what exactly? To continue repeating BOR talking points?
Sue, do you always have to take a contrarian position?
Where does Bill O'Reilly get off trying to call Dodd a "propagandist" and "I have no respect for you"?
Bill O'Reilly should look at himself in the mirror and he'll see the propagandist and someone who has little self-respect. Sounds like a classic case of projection to me.
Sue, I have issues with anyone who sucked up to that racist Imus, this is a man that called Hillary Clinton "satan" yet Dodd and Lieberman and that awful John McCain still talked to him regulary. These types of people to me have SOUL. Now that being said, Bill OReilly is the most horrible person in the media today. He is biased, two faced and hateful. You should denounce him now.
You gotta give Dodd a little credit here, he went in O'Reilly's controlled environment and fought his position, but let's face it, he did so for a little publicity for his sputtering presidential campaign.
He wanted a little press and he got a little, apparently. When you're not being mentioned at all, this beats nothing.
I give him credit also for talking to OReilly, I wonder if Keith Olbermann will name OReilly worst person in the world for talking to him like this? My guess, probably. (is this allowed?) LOL
I am shocked...SHOCKED to read sueeld bash Keith Olberman. : 0
Tommy,
Your mind reading again.
Oh come on Lynn, why do you think he went there? Mind reading? I love that. How many times do you challenge a liberal with that same charge?
And Lynn, if you don't believe me, check out his presidential website - front and center, Dodd toots his own horn for standing up to Bill O'Reilly.
It doesn't take a mind reader to figure out his motivation for his Factor appearance.
Why would Dodd talk to Bill? If Bill is so bad wihy give him any exposure?
Doris, As I said - Dodd's percentage numbers among the D candidates are nearly nonexistant.......he did this for publicity.
Yeah, but it was nice to hear Bill say;
"Bedeep-budup-bidoop-I...er...bedeebedee. . ."
Forgive me if I don't accept your attributions of vile motives by Mr. Dodd.
It's just as likely he went on to defend Kos because he believes in the direct democracy that the netroots communities practice.
Baselessly assigning motives is a well known dishonest debate tactic. It IS a weak attempt at mind reading. It is done when you have no real point.
You must be kidding. This one was a no brainer. He went on to defend the kos's democratic, blah, blah blah?
If you believe that maybe you'll let me bluff you off a royal flush someday?
Excellent poker strategy lolo. Sounds a bit like Shrimpy McFlightsuit's war strategy.
Dodd should be ashamed of himself for talking to Bill, unless Bill is not as bad as we are told?
O'LIElly is simply a fact of life for Dems - a regrettable, insidious, fact of Corporate Media perversion of the political process. Whatever Dodd's motives, he did present his case to some degree, and if there were any in the O'LIElly audience with the intellect to wonder about Bill's lies attacking Kos, they heard some of the truth. A better prepared Dodd would have been better for the truth, but even a little sunlight will singe Bill & his undead creepuscles.
What were the lies? The site's awful and embarrassing. If you support it take a hard look in the mirror.
What were the lies? The site's awful and embarrassing. If you support it take a hard look in the mirror. Lolo
I can assume your looking in the mirror since you posted here.
Uhh, yea, that should be pretty obvious. He needs all the help he can get but it will never be enough. There's only one dem contender at this point. Obama just stuck his foot in his mouth and lost all credibility with any reasonable person. it's hillary or nada for the dems.
Don't underestimate John Edwards.
Love him or hate him, he doesn't even try to be concilliatory to the right-wing base or right-leaning swing voters.
He's strident and quite forthright in his progressive intentions, he has laid out the most comprehensive, sensible plan for the country and he still has plenty of money with which to campaign.
Maybe I'm displaying some unconscious bias against you because you're a conservative. I don't think so and I certainly hope I'm not delusional like BO and I think I'm being fair and balanced when I'm not. Actually Tommy I have great respect for you. We disagree on most things but I do respect you, but I yes I do think that you and AA have the most amazing mind reading skills.
Lynn, You know I respect you as well, you are a genuine and intelligent poster, we disagree, but that's ok.
My mind reading skills are nothing more than my opinions.......that's it.
My mind reading skills are nothing more than my opinions.......that's it.
At least you admit it.
O'Reilly can't bring himself to do even that much. And THAT's why he deserves every bit of opprobrium, scorn and contempt we can muster.
Well I dunno Tommy...
Dodd seems like a coward to me...he is really shifty in his beliefs and rarely takes any stands.
Maybe he did, in fact, Tommy, I think I will agree that he did. But he did hand O'Reilly his @ss on a platter. He was dead on and nailed him on his san francisco statement, and O'Reilly totally lost it.
But I honestly will say I'm not even considering him as a candidate, I don't think he has what it takes to win. He's fighting an uphill battle because I honestly believe 1st woman/1st black president is too high a hurdle for a democratic contender to overcome.
I agree, O'Reilly did puff up his chest with Miller afterwards, and for no good reason, he looked agitated and shifty with Dodd, that's for sure.
But Dodd's motivation in all of this is so self serving. This is an essentially meaningless topic and fued that has no substantive bearing on any relevant issue of our time, at least for a presidential candidate to be discussing with some cable screamer, even O'Reilly.
Dodd didn't go up in my books because of it, he took an opportunity to get some publicity with no value to anyone but himself, really.
But it was good TV, nonetheless.
I don't know why you feel the need to even bring up the publicity angle on this. I accept it is likely true, but that can be said for just about 99% of what we hear about any of these candidates - thus rendering such a remark as merely an inane recognition of the obvious. Presidential candidates are looking for exposure. What a shock! Footage at 10.
I really hope you bring up your amazing observation every time MMFA discusses a Presidential candidate in the media. I will be looking forward to that.
lol
O'reilly's San Fran statement was nothing. Heard it live and it was a non-event. Dodd handed bill his A$%? Guess we saw 2 different interviews. Funny how that happens.
Oh give us a break. Kos is a terrible site, but O'Reilly essentially approving of terrorist attacks on a major American city is "nothing".
Great way to make yourself credible there.
It is amazing to me that OReilly was never brought up on charges for his terrorist attack hit piece on SF, the man wants an attack on an American city, it is a prime example of hate.
"It is amazing to me that OReilly was never brought up on charges for his terrorist attack hit piece on SF"
It's probably because we still have something called the 1st Amendment, at least until the liberals abolish it.
Rino, that is a cheap shot I have nothing against OReillys right to the first Amendment. But advocating a terrorist attack on a major American city should not be protected by the first amendment.
Yes, it should.
Noncontroversial speech doesn't have to be protected. It's exactly offensive comments like Bill O'Reilly's that have to be protected. We don't have to right to say that someone else should not be able to suggest things like that.
The ability to limit speech is strigent for a good reason. In Brandeburg vs Ohio, they found that they could only limit free speech if it was "likely to incite imminent lawless action". I doubt anyone would have been incited to actually bomb the Coit Tower in SF based upon O'Reilly's stupid and inconsiderate comment. It's not likely to incite imminent lawless action, and therefore it's not okay to say that he should be stopped from saying stuff like that. He should get criticized for saying it, but not censored.
Or until Republicans tap enough phones to stifle it.
Tommy, why is it that whenever a Democrat doesn't stand up to the Fox News machine, you criticize him or her for being weak.
Yet, here is a candidate, who went into the cowardly lions den, and didn't back down from his position, and you say it's for political gain.
I understand that everything is politics, but Dodd did what you've been saying the Democratic Party should be doing and still you have to qualify your praise.
Do self-serving politicians deserve praise for being self-serving?
Sounds like praising a Zebra for having stripes to me.
The point is that Tommy is trying to have it both ways. If someone doesn't go on FOX, they're cowards. If they do, they're just doing it for political gain. What's the third option for Dem presidential candidates?
You're welcome to try to defend Tommy if you like, but considering he himself is largely incapable of it I don't think you'll fare much better.
I can't say that Tommy's point is completely invalid ... of course Dodd needs exposure, and standing up to Fox News ia a pretty good way to get it.
But I want to address some other things about the video. O'Reilly promised Chris Dodd the last word in their interview. Then he gave Dennis Miller a full day to review the video and bring up things that were irrelevant (Dodd's electoral prospects) or untrue (Bill's site more popular than dailykos).Since Miller calls Dodd a hack ... Definition of hack is, "a person who works solely for mercenary reasons." When Dodd receives campaign contributions after the fact, that's a reward. As a correspondent paid to attack Democrats, Miller's a hack.
Dodd brought it to the phony psychotic Bill O'Rielly once and for all. He said what we guys having been saying here for weeks. BO’s problem with Daily Kos is their politically ideology and that is all it is to it. Dodd handled himself very well and I have increased respect for a man for showing a back bone. As usual BO comes off looking like a complete maniac. This guy is seriously in need of anger management.
I think BO came off looking fine, Dodd is the one that comes off looking silly supporting a site that is extreme and Dodd looks disloyal again for the way he has treated Lieberman a man he supported for Senate and VP. Dodd is disgusting
I don't care what you think. You are a troll.
Lynn, that is not right I have engaged with SueEL on a few topics, and I do not see her as a troll. We all have our opinions. I do not like Dodd myself, I find him not to be truthful , but I think BO treated him poorly. My question would be why would Dodd talk to BO and make him legitimate?
Yeah, I thought Fox News was illegitimate? That's what I am always being told anyway?
Very good point Tommy, I find FOX News so biased so why would Dodd talk to him?
Because legitimate or not, someone has to stand up to the Big O'Forehead and call him on his bullsh*t.
O'Reilly is LYING when he says there are no inappropriate comments on his site. He is LYING when he says Dodd is misquoting him on the San Francisco thing. He is LYING when he says Daily Kos is a "far-left hate site."
Doesn't matter if you like Dodd as a candidate or not. I'm absolutely thrilled that he spanked O'Reilly so thoroughly on national TV, on his own show no less!
Then why not partipate in FOX News/NAACP debates?
Because it will only result in more partisan analysis from Fox News.
But nice dodge there. I give it a 7 out of 10.
I agree FOX is partisan. But so is OReilly and Dodd talked to him.
I don't think anyone should give O'Reilly the time of day either. However, an opinion show is a completely different matter than a presidential debate, where a moderator's opinion should have as little impact as humanly possible. If somene wants to deal with O'Reilly, that's their choice, but to have pressure put on you to appear at a debate where the sole purpose is to make all the candidates look as bad as possible is just absurd.
You saw the way Dodd was treated by Billdo. Do you think a Democratic debate on Faux News would be any different? Miller calls Dodd a hack, but it is the Faux News personalities who are the hacks. I agree with the candidates on this. Why in the hell should they go on a Fake news debate and help give them any legitimacy?
I'm happy sue posts here. It allows us all to peer into the very heart of darkness. Sue you merely echoed OReilly and offered no original thought of your own. Miller offered absolutely nothing either except name calling, neither talked about any policy issues.
Sue, please understand this. Fox noise anchors and commentators need to make a choice. They can be either debators or moderators, they can't be both. How can you make the rules of engagement, control how much your opponents say via cutting mics and hitting the mute button. And then declare yourself the victor. Can't you even admit how ridiculous that is?
Can't find the Oreilly lies. The Kos is hateful. Spent 10-15 minutes going through Oreilly posts. Didnt find one that was objectionable. Heard the San Fran comments live. I didn't find them the least bit objectionable. San Fran and the Kos to me are simply embarrassing.
Spent about 90 seconds going through kos. If you've been there, then you already know what i found. If you haven't been there, don't worry. It will take you no time at all to find plenty of hate.
Could you provide one example of what you call "hate" when you said this?
Spent about 90 seconds going through kos. If you've been there, then you already know what i found. If you haven't been there, don't worry. It will take you no time at all to find plenty of hate.
If you can't find the hate on O'Reilly's site, then you aren't looking. Have no fear, however, because MMfA has documented several hateful comments still on his site after O'Reilly said that all hateful comments had been removed.
There are hateful comments on virtually every blog. There is hate speech on many of them.
The difference, however, is that O'Reilly is a hypocrite. He complains about sites with hate on them, but his has it too. He confuses a few postings by a few posters with the whole site and with the owner of the site, but does not acknowledge that his site has the same issues!
Deeznuts, i just wish at this point Democratic candidates pledge never to go onto O'Reillys radio or TV show. Make the pledge that they can not associate with someone who is so biased against them and is doing everything he can to help the GOP.
Tommy,
You know I have stated here over and over that I wish all politicians would stop going on Bill O'rielly's farce of a news analyst show. I'm going to tap into my mind reading skills and say that I think Bill O'rielly is nuts, and the continued presence of reputable politicians on the Factor feeds Bill's belief that he is some kind of mover and shaker on the political stage but damn it if they won't do as Lynn directs them and they won't they should at least stand up to O'rielly.Lynn, did you know you were whispering?
I agree Doris...
I have just met Sue today and find her opinions to be anything but "troll-like". Just because she happens to be a little less liberal than you, Lynn, doesn't make her a "troll".
I agree Barry, Sue is not a troll. She has a difference of opinion which some here don't like, that's all.
Yep I am really getting sick of the whole troll label anyways...it really is demeaning and takes the debate out of this forum...
Thank you, I am sorry Lynn has to resort to personal attacks , I have respect for other opinions I wish my opinions would be respected and commeneted on in a civil way, It appears Lynn is an example of someone who wants it only her way otherwise I am attacked as a troll. All others thanks for the civil debate.
Your welcome...it was a pleasure speaking(not literally speaking) with you. I dislike the use of name calling(which I admit I do sometimes) and found it very disrespectful of Lynn to call you a troll.
Likewise, and I pledge I will never call anyone names for having a different opinion. We can be diverse in this country still.
Sue, yes we can be diverse. I don't think some of my fellow posters are totally right saying you go off topic either. I do on several occasions, mine are clearly off topic (though I do say so at the start!) and don't get called on it. My only complaint against you has been a few occasions where you say I said something I didn't or assume things about me, when I call you on it you never apologize.
I sometimes do not go back and read things, if i ever offended you I apologize. I will try to look more closely.
Cool. I hope I haven't been rude either, because we are probably on opposite sides more than not, but I am interested in why you think the way you do. I can tell you stories about how I changed... ;)
Sueeld/Snoopy
I think the problem also lies in that this is an online forum, its hard for somepeople to express themselves in away that sometimes does not seem to be rude or offensive. It is the same as email. Am I wrong?
Sue I think the issue is less about you being a troll, alough unlike other's little love fest, you do some times display troll like characteristics. Its more about the level of unreasoning hate you sometimes display.
You tend to not even want to debate it, its absolute to you. Daily Kos isa hate site, etc.
When people try to tell you its not the site, its the posters there that can show hate, you brush people off as if what they say means nothing. Others have shown you some level of respect, maybe you should do the same and actually read what they say back to you before you dismiss them. The world is not black and white.
Sue . . . while I don't condone name calling, I understand Lynn's frustration. I think many of your arguments are just plain unintelligent. But you have every right to make them. But us elites on the left need to start calling you on it. C'mon you guys elected GW Bush, a serial idiot! sorry had to get that in and maybe you didn't vote for him anway -- but just STOP watching FOX NEWS, it really is the idiot network.
I appreciate your points but please understand. I do not like FOX News, it is a bad news organization. I never voted for GW Bush and just because I have a different opinion does not make me a Republican. I hope this answers some of your questions.
Sue,
It has been said in here before and I agree with it -- calling someone a "troll" is not a personal attack. It is directly addressing a type of negative behavior on message boards. It is not like she is calling you a "poopypants" or deriding your mother.
That said, I don't think you are a clear troll, but some of your comments appear to be intended to derail the discussion. That fits in with some people's definition of trolling. I disagree with Lynn in this instance, but I can see where she gets the impression of that by some of your previous posts.
"It appears Lynn is an example of someone who wants it only her way otherwise I am attacked as a troll. "
This I will not let stand without challenge. Lynn is one of the finest and most respectful posters on the entire MMFA site. She spoke quickly and tersely and thoroughly out of character.
Everybody here has pressures in thier daily lives that affect their attitudes here. You have no idea what made her say what she said and to say she must have things her way are the words of, yes, a troll.
Maybe you aren't aware of what you are doing. I believe you are. That said It makes me no difference whether you agree with me or not. I couldn't care less about stuff like that. I've been posting at MMFA for a long time. I think I might be one of the originals and anyone who has posted here for any length of time knows I really enjoy talking to the posters that disagree with me. I just find that you attempt to be controversial in an effort to draw attention to yourself and your good at it, many posters take the bait and you end up taking the discussions completely off the topic at hand. And for someone so sensitive amazingly when you derail these topics you are really sinking your teeth into someone and I've noticed it's generally someone from the left. You’ll make the cursory dig at a Conservative here and there but you seem to reserve your ire for let's say non-cons. It is my opinion that you troll and I won't engage you further or ever after this. Enjoy your discussions.
Sueeld, I don’t think Lynn attacked you she simply said that she didn’t care what you thought. Lynn is a very thoughtful poster and I along with many here appreciate her posts. I have to call you on what I feel are stupid comments like “Imus was lynched”. You have no idea what lynching is would equate a man losing his job to lynching. When you make stupid comments you leave yourself open to be called on it. And calling something stupid when it is stupid is not name calling. I also am tired of the Sue/Ellie reference every time Nomobush post. He’s not rude nor nasty but you, Jlyons and Casey always stare that Sue/Ellie business. You want respect, practice it.
Round & Pearl,
Thank you very much for your kind words. I respect you very much and feel compelled to explain myself to you. I don’t enjoy exchanges with people who are being contrary just for the sake of stirring up argument. People like this are generally disingenuous and are simply attention seeking. Many here said I was being rude to this person and they certainly are entitled to their opinion, as am I. I thought I was being honest and direct, maybe in hind site it would have simply been better to ignore this person and not respond to them which is what I’ve done in the past. This would have eliminated a good 20 posts that are irrelevant to the topic, and I am very sorry that I contributed to that. It won’t happen again. This is the first time this person has addressed me directly and I responded honestly and as maybe it came off too harshly. In a previous thread there must have been 25 exchanges between this person and several other posters that culminated in her telling everyone how hateful they were and how they were attempting to suppress her free speech. I cut right to the chase and she told me I was name-calling and attempting to shut her up because I don’t agree with her, and that only took two posts. BTW using a term that describes a person who engages in certain behavior isn’t name calling. A Policeman is a police because he polices, a Fire fighter is a firefighter because he fights fires, and a troll is a troll because he does any of the following, consistently uses incendiary rhetoric to get attention or intentionally derails discussions usually supplanting the threads topic with a topic of their choosing. If a person travels 75 miles an hour in a 50 mile an hour zone and you call him a speeder, is that name calling? I don’t think so. In addition, maybe the term troll, racist, and bigot gets used to often as many here says it does, but if someone is repeatedly displaying these types of behaviors they are the correct terms to use. I thank you again and I’ll end the subject once and for all because as usual the thread is again in danger of becoming about this person and it’s distracting from the thread's topic. Well have a great weekend.
Lynn you have been here long enough in my opinion that you are entitled to say what you want even if it is "off Topic". You have always been respectful and your opinion is respected by me.
As for you frustrations the other day, its ongoing, there are some on here who want to dictate topics especially when Keith Olbermann is concerned. To me and I agree with KO politically on almost everything he is still not someone who should be given amnesty from crticial review. That is what you reveiewed the other day on the 30 or so threads.
SueEl is someone who again I do not agree with politically on many things, but she is independent and speaks her mind. Calling her a troll was insulting not only to her but to the posters who communicate with her. I know in hindsight you wish you did not call her that, and you are so respected on here it is understandable how you were frustrated.
I only wish we could all be civil, frank and honest and not engage in this stuff.
As for the comment about the Ellie/Sue stuff, that person knows who they are and what they did to this board a month or so ago. We need to be on the lookout for people who attempt to destroy the board by changing the topic with name calling. If I have offended anyone I aplogize.
So let me see if I understand your point. You can discuss whatever topics you want, but other posters have no right to say something when they feel like your attempting to derail or change the focus of the thread? Dictate what you can discuss? Did that stop you and Sue from blathering on and on about KO?
I have only seen a few individuals attempt to "dictate" who can and cannot post here by systematically attacking another poster because they didn't like what that individual had to say. You certainly didn't have any problem jumping on the band wagon, attaching un-substatiated accusations because you disagreed with the style and content of that poster.
I am sorry, I am not sure if you were asking a question or preaching. It sure looks like you prejudged allready.
Hey Pearlene. Look at the the very first post where Sueld calls Imus a racist. Now don't you find that just a bit curious given what she said about him being "lynched". It was repulsive, but now she has no respect for Dodd because of Imus. Hmmmmn. Next time somebody brings up that stupid meme of Imus being "lynched", I'm going to post the lyrics of "Strange Fruit".
Juliajayne, I started to call Sueeld on it but decided not to waste my time.
She says on the Savage tread that she agrees with Savage on Imus being "lynched" and on this tread she calls him a racists. And she wonders why people get tired of her bs.
Pearl
Just because I believe that Imus was "Lynched" or in looking back it it that was too strong language but I would say now not lynched but untreated fairly does not equal that I support him. I have stated and always will that Imus was a disgusting act, he said racist things and was racist. MSNBC and CBS Radio allowed him to say these things and all the media types played into it. No where have I ever said I supported him. I am sorry its not related to this thread but I did want to answer that question so I am not painted as an Imus lover.
Sue, if he's such a disgusting racist, what's unfair about what happened to him? Do you think he had a right to be racist on the radio? Do you believe people can say anything they want on the public airwaves without any fear of consequences? If not, then you should have absolutely no issue with what happened.
I think part of the reason people think you're a troll is you seem to blurt out opinions just to be contradictory. Most of us disagreed with Savage, so you say Imus was lynched (or treated unfairly now). Olberman said he liked Imus (what, ten years ago was it?), so because you hate him then you have to declare Imus a disgusting racist to make Olberman look bad. It really doesn't seem like both of those statements can stand.
If you expect to get respect, you should make a better effort to clarify exactly what the hell you mean. Otherwise, you demonstrate that your opinions are baseless and not to be taken seriously.
Bra, I believe I have answered all of these questions, I do not want to further poison this thread with comments that are off topic.
It's a three-day old thread, what do you imagine the harm is at this point?
You most certainly have not answered the questions, all you said is that you don't support Imus. You can't ask for much more than I'm giving you. Your position is nonsensical, I'm being perfectly polite and giving you good advice to clarify. If you can't do so, then I honestly don't see how you can expect anyone to sympathize with you when you're called a troll. Either you post disingenuously, just to inflame, or you are a very confused person who is clearly out of their depths. I'm giving you an opportunity to provide a third option here, which you are refusing on silly grounds.
I'm being fair to you, now you can be fair to everyone and answer:How is it wrong in any way to fire a disgusting racist from a radio show?
Bra, you are being very fair thankyou. However I want to respect the rules, I have discussed my feeling on Imus in past threads. I will be gladly to discuss them again if and when a thread appears on Imus , or the hypocracy of the Imus regulars.
As for calling me a troll, at this point anyone can call me whatever they want, it is irrelevant to the topics.
I not only think you are a troll Sueld, but you have a few aliases. That is my problem with you. You are not a discreet poster. It has nothing to do with your posts that are just contrarian, meaning just posted for effect, not substance. Lynn is very, very fair. If you have discouraged her, then you can try the patience of a saint.
Cue the aliases.
it's kind of interesting that you always find the same little "group" reenforcing each other's opinions and quick to defend the "others" against charges of being disruptive. which is exactly what occured on the thread lynn is talking about. same people.
That group of "posters" are ingrates and add zero to this board either in the way of intelliegnt observances or entertainment value. Lynn is by no means the only one fed up with these ingrates.
i also think the same thing, that some of these posters are the same person, and they frequently contradict themselves from thread to thread.
Correct Barry, Sue is not a troll, and its shameful that people on here call others trolls because they dare to have a different opinion. Sue you have my support on your opinions even though some of them are insane LOL.
HEY! I'm the troll here!
lol....welcome Tweak...
I don't believe we have met...let me guess...you are a little more right wing than most posters here?
No, he's just nuts. : )
Uh...I see I do infact have a right wing now that you mention it....but my left one works OK to.
Barry, It is my opinion that ANYONE who deliberately derails topics whether they are Liberal, Conservative or whatever is trolling. There have been trolls of every political stripe that has ventured through here from time to time. It has nothing to do with politically beliefs. I’m too independent a thinker myself to single anyone out because they don’t agree with me politically. But after reading many of Sues post it is my opinion that Sue often trolls. As I told Doris if you guys enjoy your exchanges with Sue by all means continue the exchange.
Barry, It is my opinion that ANYONE who deliberately derails topics whether they are Liberal, Conservative or whatever is trolling. There have been trolls of every political stripe that has ventured through here from time to time. It has nothing to do with politically beliefs. I’m too independent a thinker myself to single anyone out because they don’t agree with me politically. But after reading many of Sues post it is my opinion that Sue often trolls. As I told Doris if you guys enjoy your exchanges with Sue by all means continue the exchange.
Doris, I am sorry but it is my opinion that Sue repeatedly and intentionally derails the topics. That is one aspect of being a troll. I won't take it back. The other day I had to wade trough 2 full pages of Sue railing against Keith Oldermann on a Bill O’rielly thread before reaching a post where someone was actually attempting to discuss the topic at hand. I don’t have as much time getting to MMFA as I used to it and it was down right annoying filtering through all that. I will continue not to engage Sue, but if you or anyone else enjoy conversing with her/him than by all means do so.
Lynn
Your opinion is respected by me, we disagree on Sue but I understand where you are coming from.
Usually, yes, Sueeld is not trollish -- at least not extremely so -- and argues points well.
However, this post here is totally trollish, as in Divorced-From-Reality Troll.
But I aree with the mini-thread below about being sick of the whole "troll" label. It's been stretched so far beyond it's original meaning (which was something of a vague concept to begin with) as to have less than zero utility and meaning, simply, "I don't agree with you."
I agree we all have different opinions and different views but just labeling people trolls because they have a different view and have passion on certain subjects is just plain wrong. That is my view.
Don't be disingenuous. You are creating a strawman. That is not why you were labeled a "troll". It may make you feel better to make that argument, but it doesn't resemble reality in any way.
Lynn once called me a "borderline troll" and I think it is safe to say I agree with Lynn on many things - at least much more than it seems you do. She just happened to be right. At the time, I was acting like a troll, but I didn't realize it until I researched some of the definitions of that word. Instead of directing my anger at Lynn (like you did), I looked to my own actions. I apologized to Lynn and have since done my best to mend my ways.
Of course, you can do as you like, but you are actually losing points with me (and I can only presume others) when you keep this going with your pretty transparent disingenousness.
What was this thread about?
This thread was about OReilly and his treatment of Dodd. The thread got way out of hand with people being called "trolls". I think we are all guilty because we steered it so out of line its hard to sift through now.
You're right about Lynn's comments. Dodd talked to Oreilly for exposure and attention. It's pretty simple. He got both and came out looking worse for having done it.
Lynn,
That made me laugh out loud.
Me too. As someone who reads through the comments often and posts seldom, I've been waiting for one of the regular posters to get fed up with Sueeld. Thanks, Lynn. Keep up the good work.
Sueeld is a troll, alright, but the Freepers are running this thread. We are the outsiders.
It is absolutely amazing to me that you can watch the same exchange I (and we all) saw and claim that Dodd is the one that came off looking silly.
Open your eyes, buddy.
Oh, you're one of them "30-percenters" ain'tcha?
Just this: any who treat Joe Scum better than a rabid dog aren't really friends of the people. If that is your complaint with Dodd, I guess you may include me.
O'Reilly seemed more out of control than usual in this clip. The video is priceless. It's funny how he flies into his most over the top rages when confronted with a guest who remains calm and on point. I'm thinking of Donahue and Jeremy Glick. Dobbs stuck to his guns and called O'Reilly on his b.s. without being dragged into the mud. It's interesting that O'Reilly called Dobbs a propagandist immediately after Dobbs brought up the Indiana U study that detailed O'Reilly's propaganda techniques. Classic projection there. Calling Dobbs a propagandist doesn't even make any sense in this context.
For O'Reilly to trot out Dennis Miller to bash Dobbs after he'd left was truly low. I love how they both are just trying to convince each other, and themselves, that O'Reilly didn't just have his hat handed to him. And what's up with them trying to claim that Dobbs has never been to DailyKos? I think the only reason Dobbs was on the Factor was because he wrote an open letter challenging O'Reilly...which he posted in his diary on DailyKos!
Er, I mean Dodd, not Dobbs.
I knew you meant Dodd, but it was fun reading Dobbs, as in Lou? Or maybe Humphrey Bogart's character in Treasure of the Sierra Madre...
Didn't take long for O'Reilly to totally blow his top, did it?
Dodd was totally pathetic!!!
1) He didn't talk about the photo that was up a year.
2) He cited a study that classified the word "left-wing" as hate speech, admitted in the conclusion that the study used outdated propaganda devices; and admitted that there were errors in the study. But MMFA continues to cite it.
Dennis Miller was right on; at least Kucinich takes stand.
Kucinich is ok in my book, he is against this illegal war.
Dodd was pathetic?
Did we see the same clip?
Is it Dodd's job to answer for the .00001 percent of Daily Kos posters who don't know the meaning of the word "decency"?
The only way Dodd could have been more impressive is if he bent Bill over his knee and physically spanked him.
O'Reilly completely lost his mind right there on national TV, practically screaming at a US congressperson...and Dodd is the one who is pathetic?
Everything Dodd said is 100% verifiably true.
Watch it again, and take the partisan goggles off this time.
"Is it Dodd's job to answer for the .00001 percent of Daily Kos posters who don't know the meaning of the word "decency"?"--deeznuts
Of course, that is Hannity's favorite tactic. It is interesting to see that O'Reilly likes it as well. A good counter would be to ask Bill O if he agrees with some of the nutcase logic on his own site.
He got asked that today (again!) and claimed his staff removes those posts immediately! Unfortunately, the posts that get removed are the liberals who dare to point out that his posters are posting a hate post. He needs to qualify that post haste.
"Is it Dodd's job to answer for the .00001 percent of Daily Kos posters who don't know the meaning of the word "decency"
Don't you mean more like 95%? The Daily Kos is a vile and hateful website. I support their right to say whatever they want to say, but they say hateful stuff every single day on that website. It's not at all like this website where people simply engage in political conversations that are usually civil. It's not a partisan thing either. There are web sights on the right that are bad as well such as The Free Republic. Hateful websites on both sides of the political spectrum should be condemned.
But O'Reilly is very respectful of the free republic website owner, even though the "level of hate" you transcribe is worse than you will ever find on thedaily kos. I mean, who in the daily kos ever sent fake anthrax powder envelopes to people like freeper people did?
Please back up that 95% claim.
Bill O'Reilly has offered a handful of posts -- not even all of which are actually offensive -- and a photograph that is so indecent, obscene, and shocking that O'Reilly broadcast it on national cable. (And isn't it curious that O'Reilly's nail-in-the-coffin evidence against DailyKos isn't an image of violence, but a fabricated suggestion of a homosexual act? THAT's his proof of hatefulness?)
Rino, using O'Reilly's criteria, YouTube is a far more hateful site than DailyKos. Have you noticed how many comments on videos are overtly racist or describe racial and sexual violence? Or how many user posted videos openly voice hatred of political positions, specific politicians, racial minorities, etc...?
My opinion about Daily Kos is based on my own observations and not anything that O'Reilly has said. I've visited that site several times, and the posters there use obscene language and hateful personal attacks on a regular basis. It's more than just "a few posts." I've never seen people on any kind of forum use obscenities so often. Sometimes it's like they're actually talking in some kind of a code; it's all f-words mixed in with a few non-obscene words. And as I said, I don't have a problem with all left wing sites. This site is pretty tame compared to the Daily Kos. Media Matters actually regulates the forums and keeps the hateful comments out. The Daily Kos could learn from them.
Well, making the case that MMFA is superior because they in essence, and in practice, censor language should not bode well with supposed champions of free speech. But that is another discussion for another day.
Calling each other stupid for their opinions and dropping F-bombs does not qualify as hateful. Hurtful yes, not hateful.
Hate speech is steeped in imagery of physical violence, it dehumanizes entire races of people. Hate speech is vulgar to compassionate ears, but vulgarity alone is not hate speech.
The people at Kos do not qualify as violent or dehumanizing and I defy you to make a compelling evidenciary argument to the contrary. You'll find the tiniest percentage of recalcitrants participating there, just like here, who truly hate. But the staggering majority will shun those dark-hearted people.
At their worst the Kos community is crude in their disposition, but that's free speech my friend: it's messy. At their finest, the Kos community is an open, freeform political jam session, because you see, web communities are microcosms of communities at large. Blogs substitute for the coffeeshops and bookstores where people meet to exchange ideas and share notes. This is the new congregation hall for social interaction.
"Well, making the case that MMFA is superior because they in essence, and in practice, censor language should not bode well with supposed champions of free speech"
Free speech means that the government can't censor someone for saying certain things. Someone who has a PRIVATELY RUN website can decide whether or not to allow profanity in their forums. That has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. I'm not advocating that the government should censor The Daily Kos. They certainly have every right to say whatever they want to say. And I'm not saying that they engage in hate speech that is illegal. I'm just saying that most of them seem to be very mean and profane.
Did you read beyond that first sentence of mine quoted in your post?
Anyway, MMFA is not exactly privately owned and operated. This is a citizen funded website which means the citizen donors are stake holders and as such have certain ownership expectations. Again though, not the point.
You say Kos is hateful, I say Kos is crude at worst. At their finest Kos is as unfiltered as our real life democracy. C'est la vie, we disagree.
Rhino, I wonder are you going to the correct site?
I used to hang out on the Daily Kos a lot and was checking in every once in a while. But since this BO thing I went back and waded through many, many posts. I found only a handful of "swear" words and only a few posters who were truly "hatefully."
I found a few jokes about current republican scandles...is this what you mean? Because if I'm not mistaken your one of the people screaming that Limbaugh and Weiner are just entertainers and should not be taken seriously? That seems a little hypocritical.
Also a side note: a large majority of really hate-filled posted, where people swore or bashed others were trolls who popped up to scream about the "terrible liberals." i.e. conservative posters, not liberal ones.
Maybe provide a link or two.......I'm waiting
"Because if I'm not mistaken your one of the people screaming that Limbaugh and Weiner are just entertainers and should not be taken seriously"
No, that was Tommy who said that. I believe that Limbaugh is a big part of the conservative movement. Without him we never would've had the Republican Revolution in 1994 and 12 years of Republican controll of Congress. I disagree with Tommy on that. I would provide some quotes for you from Daily Kos but they would be too profane to be allowed here at Media Matters. They actually have some standards at this site.
Surprise, everything you said about the IU study is a lie.
Just to back that up:
"He cited a study that classified the word 'left-wing' as hate speech[...]"
The study did no such thing. You simply made that up. For starters, the words "hate speech" don't even appear in the study. They don't characterize anything as "hate speech." Secondly, the word "left-wing" is classified as namecalling only when accompanied by a negative qualifier. All of this is laid out in the methodology, which you obviously didn't read.
"[...}admitted in the conclusion that the study used outdated propaganda devices[...]"
The study didn't need to "admit" anything. As it clearly states in the introduction, they used criteria established by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA), founded in 1937. The criteria has been updated and utilized by other researchers as recently as 2002. The IU researchers go to some lengths to explain why the IPA criteria is relevant to their study. There's no admission of it being "outdated."
"[A]nd admitted that there were errors in the study."
No, they didn't. In fact, the only reference made to errors in the entire study was in acknowledging that there were recording errors made during the census period (i.e. somebody's vcr conked out during the talking Points Memo.
Something being demonstrably false is no bar for Rhino repeating it endlessly. Only its propaganda usefulness matters to him. Facts, reality, logic, they dont mean a thing.
Again, I'm not the one who wrote that. How can you guys keep getting that mixed up?
Sorry, Calms, that has already been addressed in an earlier I U Study chart.
So easy a caveman can do it!
Never have I seen something so obviously crude, yet inarguably succinctly correct!
Considering it is Bill O's show, he just lied several times and declared himself the victor. Man, it must be tough to be such an idiot.
Bill doesn't even make me angry at all any more. I am find myself pitying him. Poor Bill.
"Poor Bill"
Yeah, poor guy. He's only a multimillionare and has the #1 rated cable news show in the U.S. Poor Bill.
What good is all of that without a soul?
open_mind, you're talking to a good Christian Republican. Money and ratings - who needs a soul?
Rino, I noticed you didn't acknowledge Clams' refutation of your IU argument -- how Republican of you. Feel free to continue spreading lies to advance your agenda. And you call yourselves value voters -- sheeesh!
"Rino, I noticed you didn't acknowledge Clams' refutation of your IU argument -- how Republican of you"
I didn't have an IU argument. I don't know what you're talking about.
"Yeah, poor guy. He's only a multimillionare and has the #1 rated cable news show in the U.S. Poor Bill."
Yes, it is possible for the rich and famous to be pitiful, in more ways than one.
However, now that I think about it, maybe you're right...
Paris Hilton would be another fine example of how money and fame can comprise the sum of a person's dignity.
So where the hell was O'Reilly when that scum bag Jerry Falwell was peddling the VHS tape of the Clinton Chronicles on his web site? You know the tape that accused Clinton of heading a cocaine cartel in Arkansas.
O'Reilly was interviewing him every so often with no mention of the hate Falwell was was spewing on his site.
After 15 years of uninterrupted lies and character assassination from the radical right on the internet, radio, tv and in print NOW now they want it to stop?
It reminds me of the bully who gets punched in the nose and goes home crying.
Are you kidding? Dodd handed O'Reilly is @$#. I wish other O'Reilly guests were as brave as Dodd.
Bill O'Reilly would be laughable, if his dishonesty were not so egregious. It's remarkable that he is even on the air, as unprofessional as he is. But it doesn't seem to matter to all those in the red states who continue to watch Faux News.
I'm hopeful that Media Matters and others will take the lead from Cenk Uyger (Air America's "Young Turks") to start admitting publicly that Fox News is not a news network, but an opinion network.
Fox "News" a Trojan Horse, masquerading as news in order to spread lies and make sensationalist t.v. dollars from doing so. If they help to spread a conservative political agenda in the meantime, all the better.
Let's call things as they are. Jamison Foser, your articles are terrific! Let's have one about this "Fox Opinion" movement!
O'Reilly was a jerk on this one. His only defense was to attack Dodd for not knowing where and when he said the SF stuff which Billy alluded to be a set-up by Media Matters(note his phrasing...you got that from Media Matters..No, Bill, everyone got it from you). Mr. Bluster can only scream and demean (S & D) as a good Fox host must.
Mr. O'Reilly, your ignorance becomes you, wear it well. By the way, please write a book so all of us will know exactly what Free Speech should be. In the Shallow Mind of Bill could be the title
Is this Dennis Miller's schtick now? To play an over the top O'Reilly fan? Is he for real? "When I'm not on I don't miss a night ... as a viewer of the factor I don't need to hear from hacks like Chris Dodd ... and he was boring, he was tedious and he doesn't know anything about you".
Amazing! Dennis Miller is being paid to simply suck off to BillO!?
How low can you go Dennis?
What difference does it make that he got the TV show and the radio show mixed up? How does that change the message from O'Reilly?
I am always disappointed when people come on with propaganda like Senator Dodd did. He obviously didn't know what I said about Al Qaeda in San Francisco. He didn't know what program I said it on.
If Dodd got the "propaganda" from MMfA, then he would have the info that said that it was from the Radio show, because that's where it happened. Dodd did know what O'Reilly said about San Francisco.
The issue is not what form of media O'Reilly used to say this hate speech. The issue is the hate speech. Since O'Reilly can't deny that it's hate speech that came from his mouth, his only "defense" is to say that Dodd got the medium wrong.
So what, Bill, so what?
I got the impression that Billdo was trying to claim that since Dodd must have gotten the info from MMFA that is was not legitimate. He thinks that by just crowing. "You got that from Media Matters", that he has just delegitimized Dodds statement. As Bugs Bunny used to say, "What a maroon!".
I don't know about you but getting no respect from the likes of BillO and Dennis Miller (is he still a comedian?) would really ruin my day.
Being called a hate site by O'Reilly is like being called a weirdo by Michael Jackson. As for Miller, that never-was slob, that Bush-like serial failure -- he thought that the mouth-breathers were his last chance at stardom. He was wrong.
I dunno much about Dodd, but that vid is really funny. Billo hasn't looked that close to a blown aneurism since he got Franken-slapped.
As for the funny photo, I got one too -- and it ain't been photoshopped:
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/S/H/bush_turkey.jpg
That ain't Scooter, but he did got pardoned. Still looks like Lieberman, though. That one's been up for years. I e-mailed it to Billo -- maybe he'll show it on TV.
Given O'Reilly's track record, can anyone really envision this "interview" going any differently than it did?
Dodd challenged him to admit that this is more than just moral outrage over a handful of the thousands of posts at Kos, and I commend him for doing so. How does O'Reilly react? Name calling and a sudden, hollow "loss of respect" for the Senator.
I believe O'Reilly is obviously peeved that he or one of the other Fixed News foot soldiers doesn't get the opportunity to ask Demo candidates loaded and leading questions in a Fixed News "debate", while several of them are willing to lend their time to the netroots movement spearheaded by Kos.
Boo freakin' hoo. Come clean on why you're outraged, Bill. I'm not buyin' the tissue-paper facade.
I love seeing the written tripe that constitutes for debate here. I pray that every democrat candidate runs to the Kos Konvention and their presence is documented for the upcoming presidential race. Besides the issue of their lack of intestinal fortidute by running away from the questions that a panel from Fox News may ask, there will also be this connection with the worst the left has to offer. Mark my words, once a democrat has been chosen they will be running from anything to do with Kos in the hope that normal Americans will forget and not connect the candidate with the philosophy of the far left or as we now know it to be, the democrat party. I believe typical Americans will stand up and in the words of Mr. Moulitsas himself, call them mercenaries and say screw them!
Ohhh, noooo! Not Mr. Sluggo!
Feel free to come back when you have a position worth debating!
It's funny that righties attack KOS, when they've got these freepers over there spouting some of the most disgusting filth ever imagined about Liberals. Typical right-wing hypocrisy.
And homosexuals, and blacks and Jews. The Free Republic is blatantly homophobic, racist and anti-semitic. BO is calling what is legitimate political debate hate speech while legitimizing his hate speech as political debate. And I give Dodd a thumbs-up for trying to call BO out on his real motive - Dodd is right to say that BO's fault with DailyKos is ideological. It is ideological, but BO needs to keep his twisted, upside down world view going by claiming it is not ideology but his sense of "morality" (a morality that only looks outward, never in).
Dennis Miller seriously needs to shave before coming on TV.
proudconservative makes the point that i have made before. i am opposed to a blanket boycott of fox by democratic candidates, but agree that they should not participate in a fox sponsored debate. p.c. claims that the candidates will not face a fox panel, but the answer to that is right here. a candidate on fox, answering anything thrown at him. thereby proving as false the charge that they are afraid of the mighty right wing intellects at fox. it was o'reilly who came off looking bad. try again proudconservative. that talking point is as stale as last week's potato chips.
Proudcon, since the Daily Kos removed that post as it had been misinterpreted so badly by the right wing media, I found a Q & A regarding it here, on Little Green Footballs, of all places.
That means you don't need to be scared of the link, there's some GOP spin right after it.
Kos was writing about mercenaries who perpetuate this war, like others, for profit, and was giving an honest opinion about it, not a zombified flag-waving political response.
There is nothing for the Dems to run away from in his response. (the only place to find the original 2004 post, as far as I can tell,is in out-of-context quotes on right wing blogs.
I'm sure you didn't research the original blog, but got your take on it from the conservative media, but that's OK.It helps others here to easily identify you as the gullible GOP media tool that you are.
Either that, or you support the sacrifice of American military lives facilitated by war profiteers.
Whichever one is your excuse, you barely hold the right to call yourself an American.
You mean "stupid americans" -- not "typical americans", right? is that too harsh? well it's intended to be. The Red State revolution is at death's door thanks in part to the net roots who work tirelessly to wake up the apathetic and uninformed. That frightens your hyper-nationalistic little heart doesn't it?
That makes us even. I love to read the abject stupidity that conservatives like YOU spew on this site. Marching Morons of the rightwing.
There is no such thing as a Democrat candidate there are DemocratIC candidates and ReNAMBLAcan candidates. People whether candidates or not are not obligated to legitimize a pure propaganda network like Faux propaganda network. It isnt about fear its like not beating a rude Nun. Its not that she doesnt deserve it rather its that no good can come of it. You attack Dems because they are neither as stupid as you wish they were nor as stupid as YOU are.
Solon, it was pointed out by more than one poster in the past couple of days that NAMBLA does not exist, just a pathetic website manned(?) by a couple of IDTENTs. Therefore, I would suggest that you come up with another name for the Rs, especially if you wish that others would call the Ds DEMCRATIC.
Thanks
The funny thing is that it's actually the ACLU which supports NAMBLA, and the ACLU is basically just an arm of the Democratic Party.
Um, wasn't the NAMBLA case about free speech? How is supporting that supporting NAMBLA?
They were supporting NAMBLA's right to free speech, not their practices. By the way, RH, if the ACLU is just an arm of the Democratic party, why has it stood up for Rush on numerous occassions as well as Sean Hannity?
I would think you would support them because of their free speech stances.
"By the way, RH, if the ACLU is just an arm of the Democratic party, why has it stood up for Rush on numerous occassions as well as Sean Hannity"
They have to throw in a few conservative cases to give them more credibility and make themselves look more objective and balanced. But that's just my opinion, we just disagree. And I do agree with them on a few free speech issues. They opposed at least part of the McCain-Feingold act, and I agree with them on that. I'm sure that they believe that laws against flag burning are unconstitutional as well, and I agree with them on that. And also, when did they defend Sean Hannity?
Well, if you agree with them on free speech, then they're not "supporting" NAMBLA. If that were the case, one could argue that you agree with O'Reilly's "Coit Tower" comments because you defended his first amendment rights in that regard. Maybe you do agree with him, but it wouldn't be fair to conclude that on those grounds.
The argument that the ACLU throws in some right-wingers from time to time for appearances is just self-serving nonsense. Yes, it's a group that pretends to be for the civil liberties and rights of everyone, and to further this illusion...they defend the civil liberties and rights of everyone. Hmm. At what point in time does it cease to be a facade and become reality?
And really, why would they defend people that violently clash with their ideology just to create an impression that people like you are just going to doubt anyway? What kind of trade-off is that? You act as if you are the face of mainstream conservatism, yet the ACLU continues to defend their supposed enemies when such moderates like yourself so easily see through the charade. Why would they bother, what would they lose by abandoning the act?
"Yes, it's a group that pretends to be for the civil liberties and rights of everyone, and to further this illusion...they defend the civil liberties and rights of everyone. Hmm."--brabantio
Excellently put. How devious of them indeed! Lol. There is something about the mere mention of the ACLU that brings out the basest stupidity in many conservatives. Thanks for yet again pointing that out.
"And also, when did they defend Sean Hannity?"--rino hunter
1989 - when he was fired from his job at a UCSB radio station:
"Hannity challenged his dismissal with help from the Santa Barbara Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation of Southern California. The civil liberties groups wrote letters on Hannity's behalf, arguing that the state school was breaching his free speech. When KCSB relented, offering him his show back, Hannity held out for more airtime, walking away from the station when he didn't get it." -- [link to www.fair.org]
The ACLU has supported Hannity and Limbaugh and many other Republican/Conservative causes. If they are indeed an arm of the Democratic Party, they aren't doing a very good job of toting the party line.
The sad thing is that Dennis Miller, who used to be a talented, funny comedian, now has his head so firmly wedged up the backside of the far right wing, that he is willing to trade "that's right!"'s with a slimeball like O'rally.
What a waste of talent.
I disagree, Miller, that bum, that no-talent never-was with the moldy 80s cultural references, that Bush-like serial failure, that hack -- thought that the mouth-breathers were his last shot at stardom. He was wrong. And he was never funny.
Hey Jonny, not according to Sylvia Plath :)
No, BrotherDave...
Miller doesn't have his head wedged up the backside of the right-wing.
He's got his head wedged up his own rectum. And it couldn't be pried lose with a backhoe.
"But I have to present these guys to the American public as best I can. Now certainly, he was challenged every step of the way."
"O'REILLY: But don't you think most people see that? Don't you think that when he comes on and does that and got smacked right back -- all right -- and I didn't like to do that to a sitting senator, I have to tell the audience. It does not give me pleasure, but I certainly have to do it."
I guess Bildo didn't watch a rerun before he made this statement. If there was any smacking done it was by Dodd, I don't expect he will be back on the show anytime soon. I kept waiting for Billdo to scream "cut his mike"; but I guess even he isn't that stupid. I have to give Dodd credit for even appearing on Billdo show, even if it was for publicity.
What an egoist Bill is, and he's the worst kind, if he can't find something to exploit for his own purpose he just makes it up.We re: Indiana University study...I supposed this is real different from the fact that Keith Olbermann can't even seem to be able to pronounce a name or firm correctly...he thinks it "cute" (albeit, really only childish) to make up a variety of rhyming elements to names...you know the way second graders used to do to taunt someone...but then what would you expect from an former jock-reporter/commentator who doesn't have the intellectual capacity to be challenged by anybody who might remotely disagree with him on the show. That, of course, is why Dan Abrams protects him with in the show lineup. Yes, remember it is Abrams who calls the shots on the show -- always has...does that tell you about the MSDNC is coming from.
Attention K-Mart shoppers...next week on The Bill O'Reilly Show, we will prove to you, in connection with the Paris Business Review, that Sen Dodd is the person behind the War on Christmas. It is obvious because his name is in the first part of Christmas...Also in conjunction with Mr. Murdoch, we have decided to change the name of our station to Foxmas, because we asked that guy Jesus to appear on Fox and he turned us down. Who in the hell does he think he is? If Jesus can't live up to Bills' expectations, he's done.
Thank You, The Ever Fair-Minded Minions of Bill O.
Well isn't that the pot calling the kettle propagandist!
What is Dodd Thinking?
Dodd shouldn't have appeared with O'Shatbag, but...
God Bless him! He kicked O'Reilly's ass all over the studio. Billdoe got his butt kicked.
Thanks so much, Senator Dodd. You did a great public service for America and for American values.
Billo is a bully, foaming at the mouth and shouting when he loses control of the conversation. What bullies usually fear is a combined effort against their bullying, and the power of the netroots is just such a threat. When responsible, articulate voices like Wesley Clark, Juan Cole, David Sirota and many others gather at the YK and attract enormous attention, old-media vested interests tend to tremble.
Bill wants his fans to believe that whomever screams the loudest wins a debate. He pretends he won because he out shouted Dodd. I wonder about the state of his health. I know he's rich and famous and by some people's measure that makes him a great person. But when he winds up like this which he does often (actually he does this when he thinks he's losing the debate) he often appears to be in danger of an acute myocardial infarction or a cerebral vasualar accident.
Man, whatever happened to Dennis Miller? He used to be a funny-man with libertarian predilections, but now he's just some weirdo neo-con.
Miller is obviously taking whatever gig he can get in order to keep busy. Fixed Noise will hire or contract just about any brainless hack who isn't camera shy.
What a perfect fit.
It will be interesting to see how OReilly reacts next week to the Kos Convention. I wonder if he will have his "lead story' talking about all the "hate" that has occured this weekend. This is his new Christmas.
I was hoping to hear about Bill-O's producer lurking at the convention, maybe hoping to emulate the king of right-wing convention crashers, Max Blumenthal. Given how well connected the Netroots Nation is, I think we would have seen news of it by now, so I'm feeling a little let down.
You're right though, the Netroots Nation has undeniably become Bill-O's new Christmas. The big difference is, now he's got airtime filler he can harp on year round.
I think the bigger the NN gets, the more it's going to drive Bill insane.
I GUESS IRISH EYES WEREN'T SMILING WHEN THE SUBJECT OF THE DAILY KOS CAME UP.DODD SAYS ONE THING O REILLY SAYS ANOTHER. READ IT AND YOU BE THE JUDGE.
I don't give a crap what Irish eyes are doing.
I just want this dirtbag exposed (O'Dingbat) and run out of town on the rail.
This whole war that O'Reilly is having with an internet site is surreal; then he behaves like a moron to a U.S. Senator and piles on more crap after he leaves. No wonder his face is all red and splotchy.
You said it Mary,
I mean, how brain dead are these conservatives?
What does it take to arouse their suspicions?
What does it take for people to use their God-given minds and think for themselves?
What does it take? Principles in lieu of greed.
Response to O'Reilly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0JQYPrRyyQ
Oh My,
Mr O needs a vacation
BILL O IS WORRIED ABOUT AMERICANS COMING TOGETHER TO VOICE THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT IN A LEFT LEANING FORUM. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU BUT I AM WORRIED ABOUT A LOT MORE, LIKE UNEMPLOYMENT, WAR, HEALTHCARE, OUR FUTURE ON THIS PLANET, AND MUCH MUCH MORE. BILL O IS A HATE FILLED IDIOT THE PROOF I HAVE IS EVERY TIME I WATCH HIM HE MAKES ME ANGRY. THATS ALL THE PROOF I NEED. I DON'T NEED TO WRITE DOWN THE TIME, THE FORUM, AND HIS EXACT QUOTE TO KNOW WHO BILL O IS.
The worst part of this whole episode was having the supremely unfunny, unqualified but opinionated Dennis Miller comment--yes, folks, a failure in comedy has a second go at it, and what better place than FAUX News! This guy is an irritant, a blight on the media behind. This proves one thing: FAUX must be incredibly desperate to employ this clown. Perhaps O'Rielly needs someone to help him look good, because even at his best, he's pretty pathetic.
As for Dodd, it could be he was trying to score some points here through media exposure in defense of Kos, but it's also clear he did a great job sparring with the big-headed one, and could no doubt hold his own against Billo's washed-up 'comedian' sidekick.