O'Reilly: "I don't see any difference between Huffington and the Nazis," KKK
SUMMARY: While discussing comments posted to an item on The Huffington Post, Bill O'Reilly said of the website's founder, "Arianna Huffington, I have no respect for that woman. I think that she is hurting the country." O'Reilly asked: "[W]hat's the difference between the Ku Klux Klan and Arianna Huffington?" and later stated: "I don't see any difference between Huffington and the Nazis." O'Reilly frequently attacks those with whom he disagrees, comparing them to the Nazis or the Ku Klux Klan.
During the February 27 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly attacked Arianna Huffington -- founder of The Huffington Post -- over comments (since removed) that readers posted to an item on the website reporting the hospitalization of former first lady Nancy Reagan after a fall. O'Reilly asserted: "[Y]ou know, I'm not going to call her a name. Arianna Huffington, I have no respect for the woman. I think that she is hurting the country. I wish everybody felt the way I did." Townhall.com managing editor Mary Katherine Ham, a guest on the show, then stated: "[T]his happens frequently, unfortunately, on the left-wing blogs," adding, "[E]very time a conservative gets injured, dies, has something threatening them -- whether it's [former White House press secretary] Tony Snow with cancer or Mrs. Reagan falling down -- there is often on [the website] Democratic Underground or Huffington Post, a celebration thread. " O'Reilly then called The Huffington Post a "sewer" and later asked: "[W]hat's the difference between the Ku Klux Klan and Arianna Huffington? What's the difference?" When Ham replied: "I think there's difference," O'Reilly said: "I don't see any difference between Huffington and the Nazis. ... I don't see any difference." Ham responded: "[O]h, my gosh. I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one." O'Reilly replied: "They both want people to die, Mary Katherine. Don't they?" Ham noted that Huffington "was not the one making those comments" and later stated: "I still don't think she's a Nazi." O'Reilly then said: "I didn't say she was a Nazi. ... I said there's no difference between what the two do. I want everybody to know that."
O'Reilly frequently attacks those with whom he disagrees, comparing them to the Nazis or the Ku Klux Klan. During the July 17, 2007, edition of The O'Reilly Factor, for example, O'Reilly claimed that the blog Daily Kos is a "hate website[]" and opined: "There's no difference between the KKK and the Nazis, who have websites, than the Daily Kos."
The Crooks and Liars blog also documented O'Reilly's attack.
From the February 27 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: All right. Now, on a serious note, Nancy Reagan got sick a few weeks ago, fell down, hurt herself, went to the hospital. And the -- you know, I'm not going to call her a name. Arianna Huffington, I have no respect for the woman. I think that she is hurting the country. I wish everybody felt the way I did. Allowed on her website vicious, vile things to be posted about Nancy Reagan. What did you think about that?
HAM: Well, you know, this happens frequently, unfortunately, on the left-wing blogs -- and full disclosure: I am a conservative blogger. But I think I have a fair assessment of this when I say that every time a conservative gets injured, dies, has something threatening them -- whether it's Tony Snow with cancer or Mrs. Reagan falling down -- there is often, on Democratic Underground or Huffington Post, a celebration thread.
O'REILLY: Let me just read you -- let me just read you one: "Like her evil husband, she has lived far too long. Here's hoping she dies in the tub."
And now, Arianna Huffington is the editor of this. She knows it comes in, puts it up, along with a lot of other vile stuff. I mean, the whole thing is a sewer.
HAM: Right, well --
O'REILLY: And don't you think Americans should start holding people like Arianna Huffington accountable for this?
HAM: Well, I think --
O'REILLY: You know, what's the difference between the Ku Klux Klan and Arianna Huffington? What's the difference?
HAM: Well, I think there's difference. But she actually -- I think things have actually improved because people like you and like myself speak out about these things and say that, "Hey, this is an --
O'REILLY: I don't see any difference between Huffington and the Nazis.
HAM: She actually --
O'REILLY: I don't see any difference.
HAM: She actually -- oh, my gosh. I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one.
O'REILLY: Do you?
HAM: She has -- she has put on -- put in --
O'REILLY: They both want people to die, Mary Katharine. Don't they?
HAM: Arianna Huffington was not the one making those comments, and comments sections can get very rough. And she --
O'REILLY: She's allowing that stuff to go on.
HAM: She does, but she does --
O'REILLY: She's allowing it to go on.
HAM: You're going to -- you're going to make me defend Arianna Huffington.
O'REILLY: She keeps her little manicured -- she keeps her little manicured fingers clean, do you think? She controls that.
HAM: Well, no, I think there are things she could do better, but there is some moderation.
O'REILLY: Better?
HAM: But, yes, the left-wing blogs have to take some responsibility for this --
O'REILLY: No, it's her.
HAM: -- clearly.
O'REILLY: It's her. It's her. It's Huffington. Her. She's responsible.
HAM: I still don't think she's a Nazi.
O'REILLY: I didn't say she was a Nazi.
HAM: All right.
O'REILLY: I said there's no difference between what the two do. I want everybody to know that.
Well, again Bill. Is this a case of what was posted on the site, or the comments posted, because as you know, they're quite different things. Ever read your own comment board Bill? You might want to.
Comparing Huffpo with the KKK and the Nazis, yeah, alright, nice one there. For one thing, folks out at Huffpo haven't killed millions of people. We could start right there.
You are so ridiculous Bill. Stop acting all indignant, because it's old schtick, and you're a lunatic. Oops, I'm betting Fox security will be at my house this evening. Drop me a line Bill, I'll send you the address you schmuck.
He's a religious fanatic who uses propaganda and lies to incent his mindless followers to declare war on all conflicting ideologies, with no regard for the value of human life, rights, or freedom.
But enough about Osama bin Laden, this O'Reilly guy is pretty bad, too.
Well O'Reilly, guess what? I don't see any difference between republicans and racist pedophiles.
So go get another koolaid, MoFo!
Magnolia:
From just below the Nancy Reagan article on the HuffPo website:
"Note: All comments are moderated by 15 real-humans 24/7; approved comments are published to our site very quickly, but not always instantly!"
To me, this sounds like they claim that all comments are screened. If so, they are responsible for the comments by others that they deliberately allow to pass through. BTW, all comments have been removed (1:10 CT).
So what's the problem then? If comments are removed, they've been removed. Right? If you've ever moderated a board, like MMFA, Huffpo, or even some others, you'd know that there is no way you can moderate instantly as things are posted. Like here for instance, there is a flagging option. I have moderated some boards in the past, and due to the amount of traffic on the boards that I've done, and the lack of moderators the time to get something pulled down is sometimes lacking.
Huffpo appears to get a bunch of traffic, and has lots of threads/stories going on at the same time, and even though it does have a bunch of folks moderating, it's still not possible to get them all pulled down in a timely manner, especially if there are a bunch of nasty things being posted.
Magnolia,
The "problem" is that Huffpo apparently does not do what it says it does,
Here is an example:
I regularly read the Radio Equalizer blog radioequalizer.blogspot.com
In the past, comments were posted immediately. As time went on, certain commenters got more obscene and cruel. Now, all comments are screened before they are posted, even those by long-time commenters. Thus, the blogmaster of the Radio Equalizer has taken responsibility for the content of the commenters on his blog.
Please reread what is written by the Huffington Post about delays in posting comments. It sounds like they claim they screen them in advance, but evidently they do not.
Mefirst:
I see nothing wrong with MMFA removing such a comment, nor banning the commenter if similar objectionable comments continue to be made.
Solon:
When you read "Note: All comments are moderated by 15 real-humans 24/7; approved comments are published to our site very quickly, but not always instantly!", doesn't that sound like they ALREADY are not approving some comments?
Solon,
I detailed my point in my response to Magnolia in which I referred to the Radio Equalizer blog.
Again, two possibilities under consideration:
1. Blog does not pre-screen. Readers advised that there may be objectionable things there. Example: Old Radio Equalizer blog
2. Blog pre-screens. Readers believe that the webmaster allowed all of the comments seen to pass through. Webmaster might not agree with the comments, but does not object to their presence on his blog. Example: Current Radio Equalizer blog
It is a free country, and I accept that the owners of blogs can choose either possibility; it is their choice.
The "problem" under discussion: HuffPo's claim:
"Note: All comments are moderated by 15 real-humans 24/7; approved comments are published to our site very quickly, but not always instantly!"
It sounds to me like they are claiming they are the first type of blog, when evidence shows they are not.
I have not expressed an opinion here as to whether HuffPo should or should not screen, let alone what they should screen out or "censor". My opinion is that they (and everybody else, for that matter) should do what they say they do. They don't. "Problem"
I do not often go to HuffPo directly.
I got there today by clicking through from this MMFA post.
And he's so out of touch. If you're going to smear, Bill, smear with something relevant. KKK, Nazis, Commies, etc is soooo 20th century.
I'm still amazed that a website, such as Huffpo, is talked about in the same breath as Nazis and the KKK. It's a free exchange of ideas on there, and as with most places, some are good, and some are bad. You get a big cross section of people who post comments on there, as you do here. Main difference is that, on Huffpo, and MMFA amongst others, we do get a cross section of opinions, unlike O'Reilly's website, which won't allow anyone to post who doesn't agree with the big bad Bill.
Yep – It’s Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure name-calling all over again…. ”I know you are but what am I? “
Has Media Matters ever done a tally of how many times this guy has invoked fascist-related name-calling hate-speech? And it’s not just him.
We should have some sort of “League Standings” in here to see who is currently in first place. Is it O’Rielly, Beck, Savage, Limbaugh, Hannity, Tweety,…. Oh Christ we made need East and West Coast “Divisions”! We could even start odds-making on who will be next to advance.
Doris,
I don't agree with the Nazi comparison, but the overall point of the vileness of the posts allowed is Huffington's responsibility. Her name is the website's name. It's the reason I am on this website, because it's moderators and format have class.
TOMMY: First off, to compare this site to Huffington Post is like comparing your local PBS affiliate to Fox News. The traffic there is hundreds, if not thousands of the times the amount of traffic received here.
I’ve run numerous online “community” sites and can tell you it’s not as easy as you make it out to be. Even with profanity filters, if a user wants to get the profanity across they can (I’m guilty of it myself especially if I am quoting someone else’s comment. For example there are plenty of times where a word used in a story here cannot be cut and pasted into a post response without being censored.) A $ for an S – or a # for an H – and readers get the message. There would have to be some pretty complex software written to catch all the possibilities – and there are only so many “monitors” any site can afford to hire to keep content censored and respectable.
I won't even get into what I consider acceptable language - or my take on your "prudish" views of what is acceptable adult language.
O’Reilly KNOWS it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a real-time exchange online without having some inappropriate language displayed. If he had it his way he would silence The Huffington Post COMPLETELY. It doesn’t take an Einstein to figure that one out. For him to whine about this is just simply ludicrous. He had an opportunity, and reason, to condemn the site - and he did it. It’s that simple. I wouldn’t have expected anything less from Bill O’Reilly. His use of words attacking Arianna directly and personally is as logical as us blaming Murdoch for every Fox News slip-up (A “D” instead of an “R” – wrong pic, etc.) – and those “slip-ups” are done by PAID employees of Fox News, not real-time online bloggers.
BillO is scum – always has been – always will be!
Well, considering this is directly from the Huffington Post "FAQ: Comments and Moderation" - "Comments on the blog are moderator BEFORE they appear on the site".
So?
Arianna is a big girl, she can take responsibility for her website's content, I am sure.
But first, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity have to take responsibility for the vile garbage people post on THEIR websites.
I'm sure Bill O had no problem with Arianna when she was more conservative.....
Tommy big difference between profanity and comparing people to being Nazis.
The comments get unruly here, they get removed. The comments get unruly there, they get removed.
Not sure what your point is.
Have you ever read some of the comments left there for everyone to read? I rarely go there for that reason.
We hold these sites to different standards apparently, you are free to have yours, and I am free to have mine.
Profanity isn't really the issue here, though, is it? The Nancy Reagan style comment could most definitely make it through here.
Also, the amount of posts and information on Huffington's site would absolutely overwhelm the IT people of this site. This site can hardly stand up on its own feet as it is. Technical issues abound.
I've seen some very dignified and intelligent debates on Huffington. You can't, like O'Reilly, hold the entire site responsible for the small percentage of bad posts you might see there. Hold the commenters responsible.
It is a fair cross section of the country posting there, I think. Its called, unfortunately, I suppose, democracy.
The bad comments, again, get weeded out.
Governor, Do you have evidence to support your assertion that unsavory website content has never killed anyone? I mean, you are always asking me for backup, let's see if you can live up to your own standards.
Thanks,
You made the assertion yet it came from your own mind, apparently. It's ok, it's not the first time, or the last. The difference is I could care less where you get your information, since it is essentially meaningless to thoughtful discussion.......so meh.
Onward Governor!
You made the assertion yet it came from your own mind, apparently.
No... my assertion that unsavory website content has never killed anyone is based, in part, on every court ruling ever made.
Uh, the burden is one you to prove that is HAS killed someone. I can say something absurd like "It never snows in Alaska!" and produce an empty hand as proof. You have to present evidence to prove that statement wrong.
Show the dead body.
By the way, there has been no terrorist attacks on American soil since I switched toothpaste.
Please read my response to you and how comments on the Huffington Post, according to them, are all pre-approved before they are allowed to be posted.
Guess these Nancy Reagan slurs were just fine with them, until they got exposed; what other explanation is there?
Tommy, that disclaimer just went up today, as of 2 hours ago. Read my post under Sueeld's a little on down for a full description of exactly another explanation.
the amount of different posts, plus the amount of comments on each lends me to believe that even with 100 people moderating the comments, some abusive ones would still get through.
Oh please. O'Reilly (and you) know that the anonymity of the internet gives freedom to hundreds of thousands of troll like comments and they aren't representative of their hosts. It's absurd to hold Huffington responsible for them.
Yep, I don't like HuffPo and some of the other sites because of their lazy moderation. I don't want to read profanity and hate, so I stay away from those sites.
But that's the only thing O'Reilly got right here - his comparison to Nazis is of course just as hateful and ridiculous as the comments he is complaining about
Hi Tommy,
I think one of the problems at HuffPo is the number of comments. The articles attract a much larger audience there than they do here. The most interesting thing about O'Reilly on this one is that he probably didn't read the comments of some of the Bush supporters on that site which are, in some cases, as bad if not worse than the usual.
I think she should get more moderators because the comments do distract from the articles.
BillO just goes overboard on this one, again. I wish I could read his message boards, but I am not going to pay him to access them.
If you need some entertainment though, read his poll archives. Only 6% of his readers wanted McCain according to the last poll (Republican candidates only) and Mr. Independent drew twice as many votes to that one as the same one for Dems.
Also, 57% of his visitors care if a politician wears a flag lapel pin! Hopefully none of them live in Jack Kingston's district ;).
" It's the reason I am on this website, because it's moderators and format have class. "
TOMMY, the reason you're on this website has far more to do with website traffic than it does class.
MMFA moderators have a tiny fraction of the traffic and comments to deal with compared to their counterparts at Huffingtonpost. It's much easier to enforce and give the impression of "class" when the incoming comments are so few.
Some Huffingtonpost items will see more than a thousand comments each. If MMFA had this level of volume to deal with, I guarantee you would't find MMFA to be such a classy organization anymore.
Both sites employ a flagging system to alert moderators.
MMFA uses a profanity filter, which is actually a POS that frustratingly blocks posts that don't contain any profanity whatsoever.
These aren't excuses, these aren't apologies for Arianna, these are simply the facts surrounding the issue.
That's like saying WalMart should not be held as accountable if someone slips on one of their wet floors, as some dinky corner store, after all their traffic and customers is way more.
Sorry, don't accept that as an excuse, and I don't think WalMart would either.
I already told you it's not an excuse, it's simply the facts that are at odds with your reasoning for choosing MMFA over Huffingtonpost.
The bottom line is you choose to come here because the moderators are able to stay on top of a small number of comments, which results in an inherently "classy" forum by comparison.
Once again, you have completely and totally missed the mark with another simplistic, hair-brained analogy.
What was the cause of that wet floor in Wal-Mart?
Was it a spill caused by a customer? Did that customer alert an employee? Did that employee make an effort to clearly note the spill with a "wet floor" sign until the floor could be cleaned?
Did Wal-Mart neglect to place absorbent material on the floor at the entrance to take care of tracked in rainwater??
Was the wet floor caused by a neglectful janitorial staffer during off hours?
Was it caused by a plumber working on the sprinkler system?
Did a leaky roof cause rain water to infiltrate the building?
Pete, If the analogy went over your head then let me help you. It's about responsibility for one's business, or one's website. It's called accountability. It has nothing to do with how the spill got on the floor, how absurb.
The point is if someone falls on a wet floor in WalMart, WalMart is responsible, just as if someone falls on a wet floor at some dime store down the street, they are responsible. It has nothing to do with the size of the business or the amount of traffic. That is an excuse no judge would accept and I don't either. Try to sell that in a courtroom, try the exact excuse you use to let the Huffington Post off the hook and see how far it gets you.
If they have such huge traffic volume, then they should have a system in place to approve posts before they are posted, enough people to monitor what is posted on THEIR site. If they care, which obviously they don't.........and that is fine, and their right, just don't act all sanctimonious and act like they do.
You're still trying to accuse me of making a point that I'm not making.
I am directly refuting your point about what makes MMFA more classy than Huffington post. That's all I'm doing. I'm not making excuses for Arianna.
You think it has everything to do with responsibility, I am saying that it has far more to do with the cause.
There can be many causes for the floor to be wet in Wal-Mart, and pretty much all of them have nothing to do with customer volume.
Abusive comments on a website, however, are directly caused by commenter's. This cause comes in varying degrees on each web site. The more volume, the more difficulty in enforcing it.
If MMFA had the same volume, Brock would be every bit as irresponsible as Arianna, perhaps even more so because MMFA is non-profit and has no ad revenue to depend on and less money with which to employ an army of moderators.
Lack of volume is why you choose MMFA, not class or responsibility.
TOMMY: I can almost guarantee that thanks to you and folks like O’Reilly, VERY SOON you will be seeing a delay in posting here at MMFA. So much for your witty one-on-one back and forth’s Tommy. You can only say you helped ruin it for yourself.
exactly, when Mary Katherine Ham has to disagree with you, you know you've pushed the limit too far.
As far as this whole posting thing goes, Tommy, the amount of HuffPo traffic is absolutely astounding...2 minutes after a thread goes up, there's 80 comments. wait another minute, there's 200...it's astounding. (I may be exaggerating a bit, but you get the idea.)
This is a theme for O'Reilly...remember how he tried to take the DailyKos to task for the same thing? He just doesn't get it. It's true unadulterated free speech, and when you have that, you get crazy, vile and disgusting things said. However, I have noticed on HuffPo, when I read the comments, most of the really vile and hateful ones come from liberal bashers.
Finally, the comments section at huffingtonpost.com just today, in fact, just in the last 2 hours, changed their format to include "Note: All comments are moderated by 15 real-humans 24/7; approved comments are published to our site very quickly, but not always instantly!" That's probably due to this backlash.
My goodness. Is he looking for new bait for a fight? NBC wasn't responding vehemently enough? What a thug.
Even Ham's absurd view, that only liberal blogs have troll like comments, seems relatively normal next to O'Reilly's. He is a caricature of himself at this point.
HAM: I still don't think she's a Nazi.
O'REILLY: I didn't say she was a Nazi.
Honestly, does this man serve any useful purpose?
Honestly, does this man serve any useful purpose?
Yes - as a bad example. :-)
What!!!??? Opening her site to posts = killing 10 million people? Or lynching and terrorizing innocent people because of race or religion?
What would O'Reilly propose that Huffington do to discourage those who insist on posting offensive material -- send jack-booted thugs to set them straight? Oh, yeah, wait . . .
because usually, they are.
Mark Foley was the head of the committee for the Pages in Washington.
Larry Craig railed against Clinton for infidelity.
Ever been to Hannity.com? I've seen some pretty vile things spewed on that site.
O'REILLY: And don't you think Americans should start holding people like Arianna Huffington accountable for this?
I think Americans should start holding Loofah Boy accountable for the lies and manipulations of fact that he commits every day.
The people who post on townhall.com are so civilized. Here are some random excerpts in response to an article about Hillary:
---
I hope the democrats take to the street, riot, loot and disgrace themselves with all sorts of chaos and civil disorder and that many of them are killed in stampedes and accidents during their melee. Oh what a beautiful sight that would be.
---
imagine the riots in a dozen cities if Clinton wins. Its just delicious.
---
maybe her real future is in the movies in the horror genre. That cackle, the bulging eyes and the shreiking voice should be enough to garner millions for those sitting in the dark waiting to see what is hiding behind the closed door
---
Hillary go quietly? Fat chance. I want the total meltdown after big losses in Ohio & Texas. Quietly? I want her to unleash her wrath on everyone who betrayed her in this quest. I want her to call blacks idiots, white males sexist, and women who voted for Obama sell-outs. I want it all. This is my dream.
---
Isn't is amusing that the "first black president" and his missus is being done in by a "brother"?
---
if she gets the nomination, she just might win. I'd rather drive a stake through her heart right now (figuratively, of course) and get rid of her.
---
Such nice people, don't you think ?
Of course this isn't a liberal of conservative issue. To frame it as such is absolutely absurd.
I literally had my life threatened at Malkin's site. And the comments are hardly ever removed.
I just dont understand how anyone can still defend this retard. He get's worse all the time.
Yeah I agree Bill comparing Arianna Huffington to the KKK or Nazis is ridiculous, though some of her posters might wear those labels well.
And of course no poster here has ever compared a Republican or the Republican party to the KKK or Nazis. Oh wait yeah they have ;-)
Recent samplings of that include;
"ReNAMBLAcan"
"RepubliKKKan"
"Reich Wing"
Yep, you're right Jeter.
"ReNAMBLAcan"
Mark Foley
"RepubliKKKan"
10% or fewer of blacks support Republicans.
"Reich Wing"
Party over country - that's the Republicans.
If the shoe fits, Tommy.
Are you literally comparing the host of the number one show on the number one news netowrk in the country....and a random commenter on a random website?
I would say that there is FAR more responsiblility behind an O'Reilly saying such nonsense than a random anonymous jerk behind a keyboard.
You don't?
You literally think Bill O'Reilly, who's show reaches millions, has the same impact with his invective as a random twerp behind a keyboard?
No wonder you disagree with this site's goals so often. You think the media and the average internet user are one and the same. My goodness.
Of course they don't have the same impact, but you are missing Tommy's point.
If you or anyone compares others to Nazis or the KKK even as an anonymous poster on a forum, your outrage when an O'Reilly does it rings hollow.
It's like you using slurs towards a minority in your mundane little life then getting all bent out of shape if someone on the radio does it.
It's called double-standards.
You specfically said "I don't really care what that one says".
Are you now backtracking from that statement by saying you do care?
I can dismiss the impact and therefore lack of importance of the average keyboard jerk far more easily than i can the far reaching influence of Bill O'Reilly when it come to saying offensive things.
One is just a anonymous keyboard jerk. The other is...Bill O'Reilly, for gods sake.
Governor, Your blustering doesn't impress me much; you ask me for backup, yet when I ask you for the same thing, you slither.......as you did in an earlier post on this thread for an assertion you made up, obviously.
So keep asking, when you live up to your own standards, let me know.
Are you literally comparing the host of the number one show on the number one news netowrk in the country....and a random commenter on a random website?- watershed
No, I am comparing the selective outrage of one over another. Sorry you can't see that.- tommy
Tommy, sometimes you're just adorable in your cluelessness.
There are far more “offensive” analogies used on cable channels (most notably Comedy Central) each hour of any given day. If you want websites that are G-rated go visit pbskids.org. The adult language of most blogger-style websites is what makes them REAL to me. I will fight tooth and nail against censorship wherever it exists – ESPECIALLY on the Internet. If the right-wing fascists had it their way, the government would monitor every typed word that crosses the pipelines. The Internet is becoming more and more just another tool for government, advertisers, religion, and commercial corporate America each day. If the religious right doesn’t like what freedom of speech brings to the Internet they should just instruct their “flocks” to keep off and leave the discussions to us free-thinking adults as was the original intent of the freedom fighters who first developed the whole concept. If FCC regulated airwaves was good enough for them for all these years let them stick to those rules and restrictions and that media type – but don’t start trying to spread those rules of censorship to the internet. Once it starts, there will be no limit to the oppression – Most people don’t realize how important it is to SUPPORT YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. <Steps off soapbox>
It's not helpful to throw those lables around, IMHO.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10731.html
"And of course no poster here has ever compared a Republican or the Republican party to the KKK or Nazis. Oh wait yeah they have ;-)"
As a member, are you contributing to the civility of the comments section by flagging such comments whenever you see them?
Who cares about B.O.?
Who cares about A.H.?
Not me.
I Do - I wish I didn't have to... but I do.
What I really wish is that laws against lies and slander were tighter in this country - at least that they be tighter during election time rather than relaxed as is the case now.
Who cares about B.O.?
Well now AA most of us here do, which is why we all use deodorant. Which reminds me...we've been meaning to talk to you about that ;-)
Well now AA most of us here do, which is why we all use deodorant. Which reminds me...we've been meaning to talk to you about that ;-)
Best. Response. Today. :-)
Who cares about B.O.?
Who cares about A.H.?
Not me.
Who cares about A. A.? No one here.... :-)
"There are few journalistic standards left these days, as we have proven on this broadcast again and again." Bill O'Reilly
The only true statement he has ever made.
I dont really see a difference between O'Rielly and Bozo the Clown
Simple. One brought joy and laughter to millions. And the other works for Faux News.....
I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels.
You know, what's the difference between the Ku Klux Klan and Arianna Huffington? What's the difference? [...] I don't see any difference between Huffington and the Nazis. I don't see any difference.
Bill O'Heilly, you filthy hypocrite.
Your post has got to be the number one most ignorant post I've ever seen. and I don't usually call people ignorant. O'Reilly didn't compare anyone to the Nazis. He said he can't tell the difference between them.
But for you and your pal Bill.
The Huffington Post didn't delete tasteless posts in a timely matter according to Bill. So that makes the Huffington Post as guilty as those who killed six million people because they were Jews. The same guys who killed every homosexual they could find. The same guys who tried to conquer Europe and wound up killing how many more millions because of their hatred.
I'm sorry but I think Webster's has just placed your picture next to their definition of the word "IGNORANT".
O'Reilly falls more into the pit of jackassery every day.
Doesn't this goofball own a mirror?
O'REILLY: I don't see any difference between Huffington and the Nazis.
But then Bill can't tell the difference between his butt and a donut hole, so I'm not sure that really means much.
My email to Bill O'Really 2/29
O'Reilly: "I don't see any difference between Huffington and the Nazis," KKKWhile discussing comments posted to an item on The Huffington Post, Bill O'Reilly said of the website's founder, "Arianna Huffington, I have no respect for that woman. I think that she is hurting the country." O'Reilly asked: "[W]hat's the difference between the Ku Klux Klan and Arianna Huffington?" and later stated: "I don't see any difference between Huffington and the Nazis." O'Reilly frequently attacks those with whom he disagrees, comparing them to the Nazis or the Ku Klux KlanAND BESIDES THOSE BUFOONS (ditto-heads) WHO LISTEN/WATCH THE MASTER BUFOON (you), (and are more likely, than not, to be KKK and/or NAZI members - or wannabe's) WHO DO YOU SUSPECT GIVES A HOOT (believes) THE BILE YOU CONSTANTLY VOMIT, ANYWAY. DON'T YOU REALIZE YOU'RE THE BEST (and free) ADVERTISEMENT DEMOCRATS COULD POSSIBLY HOPE FOR, IN RECRUTING YOUNG, EDUCATED, PASSIONATE, LOWER-TO-UPPER MIDDLE CLASS VOTERS TO SWAY "LEFT" IN THEIR THINKING. IF WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY (rest his soul) COULDN'T STOMACH YOUR METHODS, SHOULDN'T THAT TELL YOU SOMETHING ABOUT THE LAUGHING STOCK CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATOR YOU ARE SO PROUD TO REPRESENT? HE WAS THE "HONEY", YOU, AND THOSE LIKE YOU, ARE THE "VINEGAR". BUCKLEY LEAVES A LEGASY, YOU WILL JUST LEAVE. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK,
The point of Bill's tyrade was to show that the Huffinton post, KKK, Nazi's and the like allow hate speech to go unchecked. While the post may have changed some of its regualtions recently - it begs the question WHY did it wait so long? I could say a few of the posts here might qualify for that same honor.
This is what I love in the world of 'political correctness' - you bash O'Reilly for what he said and then turn around and say hate filled things about him. It's wrong - plain and simple!