O'Reilly claimed Media Matters had "personally attacked" him, but failed to offer any examples
SUMMARY: On The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly repeatedly claimed that "Media Matters has personally attacked me 109 times," but he did not offer a single example of Media Matters' alleged personal attacks. In fact, Media Matters has posted more than 125 items documenting statements by O'Reilly during the period in question, including full transcripts of his comments with corresponding audio or video.
On the September 25 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly told National Public Radio senior correspondent and Fox News contributor Juan Williams: "I've been attacked 109 times in one year by Media Matters." On the September 26 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly repeated the charge, twice claiming that "Media Matters has personally attacked me 109 times" and later adding that Media Matters for America "slimed me 109 times in a year." On-screen text indicated that the 109 "attack[s]" were during the period "Sept 2006-2007." But O'Reilly did not offer a single example of Media Matters' alleged personal attacks. In fact, Media Matters has posted more than 125 items documenting statements by O'Reilly during the period in question, including full transcripts of his comments with corresponding audio or video.
While O'Reilly offered no examples in support of his accusation, below are examples of O'Reilly's numerous falsehoods that Media Matters documented between September 25, 2006, and September 25, 2007:
- While discussing rap music on the September 19 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, O'Reilly told a listener: "I'm going to go after anybody who rewards bad behavior. ... I didn't call for any boycott. I never do that, except for France, and that's lifted." But as Media Matters documented, O'Reilly has, in fact, called for boycotts on several occasions, including a boycott of PepsiCo for offering rapper Chris "Ludacris" Bridges an endorsement deal.
- On the May 10 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly claimed Factor producer Ron Mitchell "just destroyed" an Indiana University study that found O'Reilly engages in name-calling in his "Talking Points Memo" segments once every 6.8 seconds. O'Reilly was referring to Mitchell's op-ed that appeared on the Los Angeles Times website and BillOReilly.com, but Mitchell's op-ed contained a significant falsehood. Mitchell claimed that "the researchers admit they had to make several changes to their 'coding instrument' because the first attempts generated 'unacceptably low scores.' That's code for: they tried and tried until the results fit the preconceived notion of name-calling on the Factor." But as Media Matters documented, the "low scores" in question were not scores of O'Reilly's name-calling but, rather, intercoder reliability scores of Krippendorff's alpha, a computation used to assess the internal consistency of a content analysis instrument.
- As Media Matters documented, on the April 23 O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly unveiled a chart that purported to expose a "complicated political operation" in which philanthropist and progressive financier George "Soros and a few other wealthy radicals who help him are funneling money into the political process" by funding Media Matters, which "feeds its propaganda to some mainstream media people." However, Soros has never given money to Media Matters, either directly or indirectly, as Media Matters also documented.
- On the February 14 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly and Fox News contributor Dennis Miller recycled the myth propagated by O'Reilly that, in the words of Miller, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "did not attend one" of the "memorial services for the 9-11 people." O'Reilly responded that Miller's claim "is correct." In fact, as Media Matters has noted, Clinton attended several funerals and memorials, including one for 79 restaurant employees who died in the September 11, 2001, attacks.
- On the January 31 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly said: "You know that the [actress Jane] Fondas and [actor Sean] Penns are going to say, 'Listen, I'm as American as you are, [right-wing pundit] Michelle Malkin. I just see things differently.' And I'm willing to give them the benefit of that doubt. I don't want to say that they're anti-American." However, just minutes earlier during the "Talking Points Memo" segment, on-screen text had referred to Penn as "anti-American actor Sean Penn."
- On the November 29, 2006, edition of his radio show, O'Reilly continued to hype the so-called "war" on Christmas by claiming that retailers Best Buy and Crate & Barrel are "still ordering their people not to say, 'Merry Christmas' " and that the stores "will fire" employees who do. In fact, as Media Matters documented, representatives of both stores denied having policies that forbid employees to say "Merry Christmas" to customers.
- On the November 28, 2006, edition of his radio show, O'Reilly falsely claimed that "on the night" Saddam Hussein's "statue fell" in Baghdad at the beginning of the war in Iraq, he publicly criticized the Bush administration for not having a postwar reconstruction plan for Iraq. In fact, on the April 9, 2003, edition of The O'Reilly Factor, on the night U.S. Marines assisted in tearing down a statue of Saddam in central Baghdad, O'Reilly made no mention of looting or the difficulty of reconstructing Iraq, though he did ask Fox News military analyst and retired Col. David Hunt: "So, basically, the armor, the infantry are going to be used for security now, they're going to be used to stabilize Baghdad, the other cities, and the Special Ops will hunt down fanatics?"
- On the October 11, 2006, edition of his radio show, O'Reilly falsely claimed that it "is never the case" that a "mother's life is in danger" during the course of a pregnancy. In fact, there are several potential pregnancy complications that can threaten the life of a pregnant woman. For instance, an ectopic pregnancy, which the Mayo Clinic estimates occurs in "[a]bout one in every 40 to 100 pregnancies," is a condition in which the zygote, a fertilized egg, attaches itself outside of the uterus and "may destroy important maternal structures" with the potential to cause "life-threatening blood loss."
- On the September 27, 2006, edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly falsely claimed that Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace questioned Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld about the Bush administration's failure to respond to the October 2000 terrorist attack on the USS Cole. In fact, Wallace has never asked Rumsfeld or any Bush administration official why he did not respond to the attack on the Cole, as Media Matters has noted. O'Reilly also claimed that Fox News' "guest list" is "50-50" liberals vs. conservatives and further asserted that "[o]n this program it's more left than right. It's more left than right on this program." Yet as Media Matters has repeatedly documented, conservative guests dominate Fox News programs, including O'Reilly's and Wallace's.
In addition, while O'Reilly claimed that Media Matters had "personally attacked" him, O'Reilly has himself repeatedly attacked Media Matters and has a long history of personally attacking those with whom he disagrees. For example:
- On December 14, 2004, O'Reilly referred to Media Matters as "despicable weasels."
- On the September 20, 2005, edition of his radio program, O'Reilly said of Media Matters: "They're like the Rosemary's Baby people. ... That's what these creepy, left-wing nuts are like. They're little gnomes."
- On the January 18 edition of his radio program, O'Reilly called Media Matters "a far-left swamp pit. A disgusting website that just attacks people with whom they disagree and takes things out of context all day long."
- During an April 13 appearance on RTÉ One's The Late Late Show, a talk show based in Dublin, Ireland, O'Reilly referred to Media Matters as "an assassination website" and a "far-left propaganda thing."
- On the July 18 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly attacked the Democracy Alliance, an organization of donors formed to support progressive groups, and the recipients of funding from Alliance donors, such as Media Matters for America, as a "left-wing Mafia" dedicated to "nefarious purposes."
- During the September 5 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, O'Reilly attacked Media Matters and MoveOn.org, calling the two organizations "the most vicious element in our society today" and referring to their staff as "assassins."
From the September 25 of Fox News' O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: I mean, but anybody listening to it -- and we have it on BillOReilly.com, so the whole world can listen to it -- would, I think, have appreciated the discussion for being an exposition of why people are afraid of not only blacks, but everybody they don't know. That was the theme.
But here's the danger, Juan. I've been attacked 109 times in one year by Media Matters. They attack conservative and traditional commentators. They never attack liberals. OK?
This -- what can we do? It's freedom of speech. They can do whatever they want.
But CNN knew this was distorted, knew what they were doing was wrong, because we told them -- and put it on anyway. So, now what you have is CNN has joined NBC News in parroting far left propaganda in an attempt to destroy me and the Fox News Channel and to deceive their viewers. I think -- I've never seen anything like this in the media, ever.
From the September 26 edition of Fox News' O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Now over the past 12 months, Media Matters has personally attacked me 109 times. And I am not alone. Every non-liberal politician and commentator in this country has been smeared by these people. Yet, there's no scrutiny of Media Matters in the mainstream media. They're watchdogs. Figure it out.
[...]
O'REILLY: "Impact" segment, tonight. The far-left Internet sites are in the business to smear any and all commentators who do not toe the liberal line. In the past year, Media Matters has personally attacked me 109 times. Glenn Beck has been smeared 92 times. Rush Limbaugh, 87 times. And Sean Hannity, 75 times. Not one liberal radio commentator has been smeared by Media Matters.
Joining us now from Los Angeles, radio talk-show star Tammy Bruce, who's also been attacked by that smear factory.
[...]
O'REILLY: All right. Now, Media Matters -- you're basically going to be on their target list coming. They've slimed me 109 times in a year. Every other commentator on the radio who's not a liberal gets slimed. And now CNN is in bed with these people. How do you see it?
MILLER: Well, first off, Bill, I have to say, you're my friend and I always wonder about issues like this. Why do you care? I mean -
O'REILLY: Corruption in the press. Corruption in the press.
MILLER: Yes, but you realize, Bill, that you've won.
O'REILLY: Yes, I know.
MILLER: The only way they define themselves is through the backdraft. You give them oxygen.
The gift that keeps on giving! Thanky Massah Bill!
Now, I'll post this again, it's quite funny!
Interesting link, Snoopy. LOL!
Instead of "O'Reilly claimed Media Maters personally attacked him but failed to offer any examples", the title should read "Media Matters claims O'Reilly personally attacked it and offered hundreds of examples".
I keep seeing right wingers claim O'Reilly should sue MM (yeah, right, for posting his own words?). Seems to me, if anyone has a case, it would be MM against O'Reilly. O'Reilly calls MM names, trashes its reputation over the public airwaves, puts out misinformation about their funding, etc. MM puts out transcripts without names calling or giving the reader a particular conclusion to draw. O'Reilly does just the opposite and it's dishonest.
Semi clever Mr. Miller. Your sense of humer still exists.
Oh, was this suposed to be a tender moment between buff buds?
bill, tell us about the christmas ornaments on your web site that said "happy holidays". you pagan.
of course, they disappeared after it was brought up, but enjoy the lovely o'reilly factor "holiday ornament". can you imagine what those must go for now in the unopened box? if we had only known.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200511300006
That was one of my personal favorites too. The fake war on Christmas all started by the one who bitched about it the most.
if you listen to the religionists in this country, you would come away thinking that they have to meet secretly in the basement of someone's home.
"Hide your Bible. The Liberals are coming!!!"
Just look at the home page here...
Nearly every topic is about Bill O'Reilly.
And I know you guys don't like him so...
Why else would you talk about him so much?
Pearl, Doris, Preston, Lynn, Bootsy and anyone I missed, I have to apologize in advance because I don't know a better way to say this.
What I want to say is that over the last 3 days, I've seen bill have more "tokens" on his show than I've seen all year. This is so clearly damage control that it just isn't funny anymore.
Anyways, sorry for the distasteful reference.
You think calling them tokens are disrespectful? No need to apologize, man, I'm just happy that my liberal pals are seeing clearly how the Right operates in matters of race, and whenever one of them gets in trouble, they drag in one of their "black pals" to defend their comments. Juan Williams has always been a token for the Right. I actually find him to be worse than Alan Colmes because at least occasionally Colmes makes sense; but all Williams cares about is getting paid. He's always been a lapdog and will continue to be one for Fox because that's what he's paid to do. Talk about someone with no principles!
Preston, I felt it could be, thanks for correcting me. I may be over sensitive periodically because of what I've dealt with because my wife is hispanic. Another form of racism, mixed marraiges.
You're in a mix relationship, too? I am as well, only I'm gay and the partner I've been with for over five years is Jewish. He's actually a lot more militant than I am when it comes to criticizing and deconstructing racism.
But you weren't being disrespectful; you were being accurate. I would have gone further and called Williams and others of his ilk sycophantic, money-grubbing lapdogs, but that might be too “inflammatory.”
Preston, do you realize that while you and your partner are having a nice quiet evening at home, somewhere a Republican is bolting up in his bed in a cold terror sweat caused by nightmares of you?
Thanx!
If me being in a gay mixed relationship gives Republicans conniption fits, perhaps I've should have gone white and came out of the closet a long time ago. ;)
Perhaps that saying is true: once you go white, you mortify the far-right.
somewhere a Republican is bolting up in his bed in a cold terror sweat caused by nightmares of you?
HBL you know it's not nightmares, they're just jealous.:)
Snoopy, no apology needed.
I have a new intro for Fox's Juan Williams.
For true Black opinions we have Fox's own Juan Spokesnegro Williams (stole that from HBL)
Pearlene, you didn't steal anything, it's a potluck picnic here, and everything's up for grabs. I was actually hesitant to post "spokesnegro", for the same reason Snoopy was nervous about "token". I'm glad you got my point, and took it in the spirit I intended.
On the other hand, my reference to Popeye's on another thread, that was "casually racist at best". ;0)
Ha! I like Spokesnegro, it fits Juan Williams perfectly. University of Pennsylvania professor Adolph Reed, Jr. has a good one as well: "Pet Negro." Either one would fit Juan Williams like a glove.
Just glanced over at 'The Factor,' and the whole show is damage control. He even played the tape where he mentioned the concert and how black people were dressed nicely. Jesse Jackson was on, and asked; "What were you trying to say Mr. O'Reilly?" To which O'Reilly quickly changed the subject to 'Look how I'm being smeared.'
Now, Juan Williams is on with his 'yes master' BS. He knows who butters his bread.
Now, Juan Williams is on with his 'yes master' BS. He knows who butters his bread.
It's so disgraceful watching Williams act like a weakling and suck-up. I only watched the Jackson interview with O'Reilly; I can't stomach Bernard Goldberg and Jane Hall rationalizing Bill's remarks, with Williams following thereafter doing the exact same thing.
Juan kept calling him; "Mr. O'Reilly." I found that very telling since on the Sunday show Juan always says Brit, Chris, and Bill for Hume, Wallace, and Krystal respectively.
Jesse Jackson never once gave BO a pass for his comments tonight. Bill always steered the conversation away from his vile racism. I'll bet $100.00 that on tomorrows radio show BO will say: "Jesse Jackson came on The Factor to defend me," or something to that effect.
Yep, just like that AOL Poll he cited, despite the fact his website has directed his users to take the poll so it can show he has a lot of support.
Yes, he said Black People were dresed nicely. Not like we see Blacks dress on the MTV- Baggy clothes. His point was that it wasn't a Snoop Dowg show.
I was waiting for it and didn't have to wait long. Referring to Juan Williams comments "yes master" is racist -
It's disturbing that you don't even realize it. Why not quote him as saying "yas massah" and show him as the bungling step-n-fetch-it Fox house boy that you think he is? The left's feeling about conservative African Americans is well documented:
"Is you their black-haired answer-mammy who be smart? Does they like how you shine their shoes, Condoleezza? Or the way you wash and park the whitey's cars?" -- Left-wing radio host Neil Rogers
(On Clarence Thomas) "A handkerchief-head, chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom." -- Spike Lee
"He's married to a white woman. He wants to be white. He wants a colorless society. He has no ethnic pride. He doesn't want to be black."-- California State Senator Diane Watson's on Ward Connerly's interracial marriage
You want more?
"He's married to a white woman. He wants to be white. He wants a colorless society. He has no ethnic pride. He doesn't want to be black."-- California State Senator Diane Watson's on Ward Connelly’s interracial marriage
++++++++++++++++++++++
There is nothing racist about her observations; I’ve always felt the same way. Look I’m sure she feels the same way I feel about interracial relationships. I think adults should be with who they love and want to be with. But I find Ward very perplexing; his life seems to have been completely purged of Black people. I watched a 60 minute segment featuring Ward Connelly once. His views in my opinion are extreme and his views on the existence or should I say non-existence of racism are downright delusional but the very reavealing thing about Ward was that the Connellys were hosting a casual backyard social gathering at his home with their friends/family and the only Blacks there were Ward and his bi-racial children. I don't know any Black people who don't have any Black friends and all the Blacks I know are close with their extended family and those members are certainly invited to social gatherings. He’s a very strange man; imagine the kind of self loathing that makes a person avoid anything that reminds them of who they are.And, Lynn, I didn't get the memo that a black person calling another black person "Uncle Tom" was racist. From what I recall reading "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and James Baldwin's famous essay "Everybody's Protest Novel" which was a scathing attack against the book, "Uncle Tom" has its origins of being subservient and accommodating to white supremacy. "Uncle Toms" ACT this way to get easy access to privilege that’s denied to others who refuse to be obsequious to whites. It has nothing to do with being biologically and intellectually inferior than another race where blacks are completely ostracized as an entire group due to their race. Furthermore, the term “Uncle Tom” has become so famous it’s used by other people of color, like Native Americans who use “Uncle Tomahawk.”
Then again, this is just another way for the Right to try to find something equivalent to the 'N' word with their attempt to paint liberals as the TRUE racists!
It's official. With all of these sycophantic, butter-him-up pals of his, O'Reilly has finally turned into Tiny Elvis.
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/92/92aelvis.phtml
Marvin Kitman was just on Keith Olberman, and used several of our original observations about O'Reilly in his commentary. However, he didn't cite us. I'm so ticked! :-)
I'm so flattered! And ticked. :-)
Which of you posters is Marvin Kitman?
Yes Bill. Once again, using your own words against you is not attacking. Quoting you verbatim, is not attacking. Pointing out how you're wrong, is not attacking. I'm enjoying this meltdown. I was sort of on the bandwagon about maybe letting off the Bill O'Reilly posts on MMFA, but alas, this is getting fun. And the best part, is that if he keeps pointing people towards MMFA, there is a fair chance they'll read the site, and see indeed what they're about on here. Funny stuff Bill. Keep it up, you're burying yourself, and I'm LOVING it!
This has been the best week ever in terms of ball kicking O'Reilly. How does it feel Bill?
In the realm of good news, besides a judicial ruling against the patriot act. Mychael Bell is out on bail today.
I just thought of something.
Do you guys think that Bill is talking about the comments section? Because you know how he feels about the Dailykos comment section and all, this could be the same thing after all. So yes, I would say a lot of folks within the comments section are attacking him, but the website? No Bill, no. That's not how that works.
I'm still waiting for him to knock on my door. I'm thinking maybe we should get a wrestling match together. Brock VS O'Reilly. My money is on Brock.
By talking about the attacks by the comment section of MMFA, BO would then be telling the truth. We attack him quite nicely. At times I feel guilty, because it's like shooting fish in a barrel with a machine gun.
Let me make it clear. I don't feel guilty about O'Reilly, I feel bad for the fish for comparing them to O'Reilly.
HI BILL!
In my observation MMFA has not, and does not, directly attack Bill O'Reilly. True, MMFA presents Billo's miscues such that it's easy to connect the dots and draw a not too pleasant conclusion about Billo. In truth, WE attack Billo...I do, for sure, and make no apologies for that. It's the posters here who actually say the nasty, but true and deserving things, about Billo. We astute observers note Billo's many shortcomings.
Perhaps, it's time for Billo to be truthful...or at least accurate. All MMFA does is to print transcripts of Billo's many gaffes and to place them in context...MMFA does not trash Billo. If Billo has any gripe with MMFA it should more accurately be because MMFA provides us with a forum to blast away at Billo with anonymity.
I don't know about you guys, but I feel every nasty thing I've ever written here about Billo is truthful and sincere. I think Billo is a bad person. What's wrong with criticizing a very public figure who uses his unique position to bully people and to lie. Billo reportedly makes $50 million a year. For what? He's not even smart...he just got lucky. Why not expose him as a fraud?
But, back to the point...WE trash Billo, not MMFA. You got a problem with that, Billo?
Bill needs to be agreed with by everybody. If they don't agree with him, his ego has been crushed. But, he's used to it, so he bounces back quickly, and lies some more.
If someone makes a rational counterpoint, he shouts them down, and doesn't allow it to be heard by his audience. After all, Bill is the smart one.
I see a future reality series, Wrestle a Pundit! This could be a massive hit. Finances could be tricky.
You think that if we asked him really nice that maybe Billo would bankroll it?
"Last Pundit Standing" just the auditions would fill up a whole season of laughs and jaw dropping stupidity.
Bill O
But here's the danger, Juan. I've been attacked 109 times in one year by Media Matters. They attack conservative and traditional commentators. They never attack liberals. OK?
Assuming that Bill O sent one of his “researchers” or possibly his “producer” to the MMFA web site to check things out; what’s not to understand about?
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
Gee Bill D’OH it’s quite obvious that they are not going to “attack” any liberals or progressives."Gee Bill D’OH it’s quite obvious that they are not going to “attack” any liberals or progressives. "
Bill hates opposition. I'll bet he plays tennis alone.
I like Williams for the most part. It's sad to see him used in this way.
True, but what's more sad is that Juan lets them.
Glenn Beck must be proud. He beat out two other more distinguished pathological liars to come in 2nd only to Papa Bear. What a great month for him!
But then again, it is O'Reilly's "statistics". I haven't been keeping count, but I think I've seen more articles featuring Chris Matthews than I have of Beck.
Doesn't it bother anyone on this website that everyone aggrees with everyone? Not one post that disaggrees with anyone. Can only "Libs" come and post on this site?
If you've got something to say, say it! If you say something stupid, you'll be called on it. If you make a rational argument supported by obtainable evidence, you will find that you can have a pretty good debate.
I AGREE TOTALLY... ;>)
You haven't been around much if you don't think that conservatives and others aside from liberals post on here. Go back, and do some reading, and if you have a point to make or express about Mr. O'Reilly and his apparent craziness, please make it.
I totally and explicitly disagree with you in the most vocifreous, strong way you can imagine!!
There, happy now?
Does it bother YOU that your post had NOTHING to do with the topic and shows only that you havent read virtually ANY of the thread before making such an obviously uninformed observation?
ZXGTR take a larger sample. We are pretty much open to anyone. Say what you will, baring a lot of explitives. If you say something stupid in someones opinion. You can be taken to task for it. You make a point, we won't hide from it.
Thanks, MM, for bringing back my favorite BOR quote, "I didn't call for any boycott. I never do that, except for France, and that's lifted". That gives me a chuckle every time. If anybody tries to mke the argument that BOR is not a complete joke, the France thing is all the rebuttal that is needed.
"The only way they define themselves is through the backdraft. You give them oxygen" Ah, breathe it in brothers and sisters, fresh clean 02, it saves and it burns.
Everything is always about HIM, isn't it? Not his views, but HIM personally.
I think they call that Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Media Matters is emblematic of the most disgraceful example of (quasi) journalism in existence. Smearing the moderate O'Reilly to get web site hits.. Juan Williams is the archetype of what a successful black, law-abiding, descent American should resemble. Calling him and O'Reilly names does nothing to further race relations. They only want to help; most of you idiots want nothing more than to carry Brock's water while blaming “whitey” for all the “brother’s” ills.
...seems to me that MMFA basically offers documentation.
Its posters have their say as is their right. I personally do not think Mr. O's restaurant comments warrant much ado... being as they were rather unsophisticated and really just a bit goofy. However, he deserves as much criticism as he dishes out on other issues. Not to mention the ire of folks who are not in denial of his disdain for "the folks". I, for one, believe that he and the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh, and Coulter are the avant-guarde of the dumbing down of America.<!-- google_ad_section_start(name=def) -->
YOU are emblamatic with what is wrong with conservatives today. Ignorant beyond belief and showing you NEVER know what you are talking about.
Oh, I forgot, anyone who really buys that O'falafel is a moderate has serious problems with reality
Mr. O says"They attack conservative and traditional commentators. They never attack liberals. OK"
Funny thing is, ironically, there just ain't that many liberals broadcasting. Plus, those that do are generally reasonable, and rational.
To digress a bit, anybody here remember comments Mr. O made a few years ago regarding partial birth abortion and how women will use any excuse like " a headache" to obtain one...I distinctly remember some such comment but have yet to find reference to it on the www. I'd like to see MMFA add that one to the list.
sorry, one more thing.
where does he get this "far left" moniker.
Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin are dead-long-time.
There are no real leftists in mainstream America and MMFA is mainstream (albeit WWW-style)...I mean anyone who believes in the second coming of the socialist revolution is as muddled as the Fox News Outlet
O'Reilly is right on this count: You can't spell crap without an R, an A and a P.