O'Reilly again misrepresented prior comments about terrorists attacking San Francisco
SUMMARY: Bill O'Reilly again misrepresented comments he made in 2005 about a possible terrorist attack on San Francisco, stating on his Fox News show: "I made a joke out of San Francisco. If they didn't want the military, then the next time there was a terror attack, they're on their own." In fact, O'Reilly had said: "[I]f 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."
During the April 25 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly again misrepresented comments he made about a potential terrorist attack on San Francisco. Referring to the "We Can Solve It" ad campaign with Fox News analyst and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), who appeared in one ad with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), O'Reilly stated: "Tell me about Nancy Pelosi. She won't talk to me. In fact, she tried to get me fired because I made a joke out of San Francisco. If they didn't want the military, then the next time there was a terror attack, they're on their own." In fact, during the November 8, 2005, broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, O'Reilly declared, "[I]f 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."
O'Reilly has previously distorted the nature of his comments. Less than a week after making the original comments, O'Reilly defended them as "satirical" and played an audio clip of his comments but omitted the part that caused the controversy; Fox & Friends likewise excluded the relevant portion of O'Reilly's comments.
From the April 25 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Continuing now with former Speaker of the House and current Fox News analyst Newt Gingrich. You may have noticed there are a series of television commercials running, pairing unlikely people like Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson there. The commercials are produced by Al Gore's company and are designed to bring awareness to environmental concerns. Now, we got kick of seeing the latest -- kick out of seeing the latest one: Nancy Pelosi and Mr. Gingrich.
[begin video clip]
PELOSI: Hi, I'm Nancy Pelosi, lifelong Democrat and speaker of the House.
GINGRICH: And I'm Newt Gingrich, lifelong Republican and I used to be speaker.
PELOSI: We don't always see eye to eye, do we, Newt?
GINGRICH: No, but we do agree our country must take action to address climate change.
PELOSI: We need cleaner forms of energy and we need them fast.
GINGRICH: If enough of us demand action from our leaders, we can spark the innovation we need.
PELOSI: Go to wecansolveit.org. Together, we can do this.
[end video clip]
O'REILLY: You know, she's looking rather adoringly at you. You know, it's kind of like Hansel and Gretel there. You know? You guys should have been in lederhosen. I -- she really looks like she likes you.
GINGRICH: What a way to spend a Friday evening, getting you raking me over the coals.
O'REILLY: Tell me about Nancy Pelosi. She won't talk to me. In fact, she tried to get me fired because I made a joke out of San Francisco. If they didn't want the military, then the next time there was a terror attack, they're on their own. But tell me about Nancy Pelosi? Do you like her? Do you have a --
GINGRICH: She is a --
O'REILLY: -- cordial relationship with her?
GINGRICH: No. Look. Look, she is a very tough, very professional, very wealthy, liberal woman who earned becoming speaker. She -- I knew Nancy back when she was the national committee woman before she came to Congress. She worked very hard as a liberal Democrat. She is about 70 miles to the left of me. And she's a tough professional. We're not personal friends, but I respect that she managed to get to be speaker of the House.
Rehashing this old "controversy" for what? Besides a vehicle to take swipes at O'Reilly, what is the reason?
As despicable as O'Reilly can be at times, does anyone really believe he was serious in either advocating or inviting that Coit Tower be blown up by terrorists? He was either deadly serious, or it was a tasteless joke?
MMFA has their opinion, but that's all it is.
Examples of "making stuff up" please? Or are you going to simply call me a fool for asking, then deny you ever said such a thing later.
If I ever find reason to note you as a fool I promise I will not deny it.
Since you are so fond of that last thread go back to the MMFA presentation of the story and expose the "misinformation" please.
Let's start with this story - please parse out the misinformaton vs MMFA's opinion.
If you would like an additional example please revisit the Bill O thread from Friday. I found no misinformation there either - just assertions.
MMFA has always considered outrageous statements to be part of the misinformation package. Perhaps because it is a coarsening of the dialogue. In the beggining they had the one on the right hand sided and the direct misinformation on the right. We dont care if you agree or not. It isnt your call. If you dont LIKE the way MMFA does things feel free to avail yourself of the several million other websites out there. Or continue to tell LIES like accusing MMFA of making things up. Billy O'falafel misrepresented what he said. THAT is misinformation by pretty much any standard.
It is indeed an outragous statement, but no- it is not misinformation. You are correct Solon in that there are millions of other websites out there - but this one was championed as being on the front lines in the war against the "conservative" media.
I came here expecting to find many stories from main stream media publications like The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, or television news shows like Meet The Press, This Week - you know - the ones people actually read and watch. And while there may be an occasional citing from one of the real MSM sources - the majority of things listed here are from obscure cable shows, right wing blogs, and Chris Matthews. Most of the stuff is opinion twisted and "misrepresented" by Media Matters itself. (Do you think McCain's "100 year war" line was misrepresented a few times?)
Rush Limbaugh doesn't even rate top billing here and if ever there is conservative misinformation it generates with him. If this is the best MM can come up with there is no war, there's no conservative media - it's hardly a water balloon fight.
MMFA has to prove a negative?
Yeah... uh huh.
Whatever.
It seems to me like anytime someone here says something negative about Bush that conservatives just can't contain their need to hear a basis for the charges. But when O'Reilly makes an unsubstantiated charge, then there's no need for him to back it up.
And if you do see the need for him to back it up, then you obviously understand the nature of the criticism. Making baseless assertions isn't acceptable on a message board like this, let alone in the national media.
Dems
As a smarter poster than me has argued here... i don't think that proving a negative means what you think it means.
You really should attempt to at least acquaint yourself with some of the more commonly used elements of logic.
I must go to meetings - I will check back tonight for your response and follow up tomorrow.
Is "meetings" your code word for cross burnings?
Do you make it a habbit of picking up other dogs poop? You can do so much better for yourself.
Is this supposed to ba another hint as to your occupation?
You and Tommy are both wrong about this one. I was watching this show, and O'Reilly used this to smear Pelosi; "She won't talk to me. In fact, she tried to get me fired because I made a joke out of San Francisco."
This statement has at least one lie in it, and possibly three.
1) I heard O'Reilly's original statement about SanFran. He was angry that San Fran was trying to pass a law that wouldn't allow reqruiting at high schools or colleges. THIS WAS NOT A JOKE.
2) "She [Pelosi] won't talk to me." Is this true? I think she's be happy to face off with the fool over the SanFran thing, since it had nothing to do with her since she is a U.S. Representative, and the law in question was on a local level.
3) "In fact, she tried to get me fired. . ." This should be easy enough to prove, yet the jackass offers nothing to back up the statement. Is there a letter? Is there a witness that can back up this story?
O'Reilly is like the old guy who tells stories of the fish he "used to catch." The longer you let him talk, the larger the fish becomes. But the two of you wonder why this is here, so I'll answer you with these two reasons:
To Debunk O'Reilly While He Is Trying To Look Like The Ever-Persecuted, And Ever-Conquering Hero.
To Show How O'Reilly Is Trying To Smear Pelosi To Appear To Look Like A Far Left Loon.
This guy is the biggest Walter Mitty on Television.
I heard Billo gloss over his previous San Fran comments too. He sloughs it off as nothing and merely a joke.
Usually BillO goes around misrepresenting others' remarks. But in this case, we get to see him misrepresent his OWN remarks. I'm not surprised that he was not up front with regards to all he said about San Fran or that he wouldn't want the audience to know his complete remarks. I would be too if I said something that totally stupid and disgusting.
I was actually watching the show when he said it and he wasn't joking. He was serious. He was angry the city wouldn't let the military recruit in high schools and he was angry. His revisionist history has it being a joke, just like his revisionist memory has him being a faithful husband who has never sexually harassed a woman in his life.
Which is why he paid the lady to go away. . . He can't pay to make things go away when they're done on prime time television though.
I heard Billo gloss over his previous San Fran comments too. He sloughs it off as nothing and merely a joke.
Kinda like how Ann Coulter claimed it was a joke when she suggested that someone should put rat poison in Suprem Court Justice Steven's creme brulee - only after her audience gasped instead of laughed. it's the oldest trick in the book - when conservatives are caught by what they say, they claim that it was either a joke, or that they were "taken out of context".
And poor Tommy fell for it.
He may not have been serious, but some people might not see it that way. They may even support a terrorist attack on San Francisco...the place has been demonized by the likes of him for years.
But more to the point about the thread...His newest comment did, in fact, misrepresent his previous comments. That is misinformation to a T. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean he wasn't misinforming the public about his previous comments.
"The only misrepresentation is that he said he was joking,"
Exactly, which is why this is here, to answer your WITH. The second half of your post is just speculation.
"As I said, he has always maintained, as far as I know, that he was joking."
He didn't at the time he said them. You know, usually after you call for the bombing of a city in a joking way, you'd have some hint that you were joking, or at least say "that was a joke people." no, only a few days after did he say he was joking, and then when he played the clip again, omitted the contested remarks. Fox and Friends did the same thing. Why would he omit the remarks if he was just joking in the first place?
I heard him originally say it too and he sounded angry when he said it. He made no comment at the time saying he was joking.
It was only after he caught grief for it that he pulled out the it was a satrical riff....days later. Even then when he discussed what he originally said calling it satire, he left out the part about Al Qaeda blowing up Coit Tower just like he did this time. He has purposely left out this part of his remarks twice now.
Obviously BillO doesn't want his audience to know about the entirety of his comments otherwise he would have mentioned it all. He doesn't have the guts to stand behind his own past comments.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200511150003
WRONG ! He has only maintained that it was a joke AFTER he was his with outrage from those who originally hear his angry statement. THAT IS FACT !
Did he specifically say he was serious at first, then changed it later by saying it was only a joke?
No.
So, everytime someone says something in anger it is to be absolutely serious and not a product of that anger?
Have you never said anything in anger that you didn't mean?
Yes Tommy. I've said things in anger that I didn't mean, and I've also told jokes before. I don't recall ever telling jokes in anger, and as a normal human, I am able to tell the difference.
"Knock knock."
"Who's there?"
[BANG goes the shotgun, thud goes the door answerer falling to the floor]
This is an example of angry/joke. . . Nope, still not funny.
Have you never said anything in anger that you didn't mean?
Yes, but I admitted it was a mistake, not a joke.
Ask Worrier for clarification Governor, he said it and I agreed with him.
You are just pissed that some people don't agree with you and you can't accept that. Well tough.
Did he specifically say he was serious at first, then changed it later by saying it was only a joke?
No.
Yes he did, Tommy. I posted a link to ThinkProgress's report on the whole mess toward the end of this tread.
Fine, Tommy. Here are Bill O'Reilly exact words as he said them over a conservative radio station in San Francisco a few days after his initial remarks, as reported by ThinkProgress. They also have a link to the actual audio, if you don't believe their transcript:
HOST: First question, do you stand by what you said?
O’REILLY: Of course I do. I mean, it’s ridiculous. We’re in World War III and San Francisco votes against military recruiting in schools. It’s insane. So, you know, people have to live with their actions. If I were President Bush, I would just go in and say, “Alright, that’s fine. You don’t want to help us in World War III? We’re just gonna withhold federal funding, except for children’s programs.” I’d make an exception there. You know, look, when is the city of San Francisco going to wise up? You know, enough’s enough. This is life and death we’re talking about here. And you know, I’m from New York. There are dozens of people from my neighborhood on Long Island are now dead because of 9/11, and you people are telling me you’re not going to allow recruiting out there? Hey, it’s serious, and I think you guys need a wake-up call — not you guys, the people who voted against the military recruiting.
HOST: Yeah, we certainly don’t need a wake-up call on that score. It was a couple of months ago, we said virtually the same thing when the Board of Supervisors announced that they were above the warship — I believe it was the U.S.S. Iowa, wasn’t it? — docking as a military museum, because “we don’t want to be endorsing the military.”
O’REILLY: Yeah, well I think that enough’s enough, and there are a lot of good people in the city of San Francisco, but you’ve been hijacked by the radical left. Your press is radical left. The San Francisco Chronicle is a radical newspaper, its circulation is dropping like a rock. Your local news doesn’t exist, TV. You’ve got big problems in the city — and I love the city, it’s a great city, but if you’re going to work against the United States of America in the war on terror — the city of San Francisco chooses to do that — then you have no right to have federal funding. Believe me, if I were President Bush, I’d be standing in the middle of Union Square telling you that.
HOST: We’re talking with Bill O’Reilly. “Reaction came swiftly from City Hall,” it says in the Chronicle. “Board of Supervisors member Aaron Peskin, whose district includes Coit Tower, suggested that O’Reilly should get his head examined. ‘It sounds like he’s on the same medication Rush Limbaugh is addicted to, and he should go see a therapist,’ Peskin said.”
O’REILLY: Yeah, another cheap shot by that guy. He’s a classy guy, isn’t he? Taking a cheap shot against somebody. You know, this is the hallmark of the left: Cheap shot everybody. Come out with the most insane things you can. Convince your Kool-Aid drinking crowd to follow you. Look, San Francisco is a beautiful city. It is now a disgraceful city. You can’t even walk around the city without seeing people doing appalling things in the streets. I mean, you’re not going to wise up, I understand that. The city’s been hijacked, it’s going to stay that way. But the rest of the country doesn’t have to approve of it.
HOST: You know what really galled me about the Chronicle article, it was a collection of quotes, you know, taking various personal shots at you. The question was never even asked, “What did he mean? And is there some truth to it?”
O’REILLY: Yeah, the writer of the article didn’t even call me. He took all his information, as usual, from radical left-wing websites. Lazy, terrible reporting, which is the hallmark of the Chronicle, which is why the Chronicle is going to go out of business. I mean, look, everybody knows what’s going on there. What I said isn’t controversial. What I said needed to be said. I’m sitting here and I’m looking at a city that has absolutely no clue of what the world is. None. You know, if you had been hit on 9/11 instead of New York, believe me, you would not have voted against military recruting. Yet the left-wing, selfish, Land of Oz philosophy that the media and the city politicians have embraced out there is an absolute intellectual disgrace.
HOST: Well it strikes us as kind of a pathetic, adolescent, “I’m above all that stuff” attitude, an ignorance of the nitty-gritty and the blood, sweat, and tears that go into defending a nation.
O’REILLY: I don’t think they like the country. I don’t think these people like the country. They feel that we’re the problem, we’re the evildoers, that al Qaeda is created because of us. That’s the hallmark of the radical left. It’s always America’s fault. We’re the bad country, and the enlightened citizens of San Francisco, we’re not going to be a part of it. We’re gonna separate out. We’re gonna ban military recruiting. Number one, that’s a fascist act. I mean, you’re making a decision that your citizens can’t hear of an opportunity they may want to hear about. That’s number one. So, look, I’ve had enough. I think you guys have had enough. If these guys want to come on the Radio Factor or the television Factor and debate me — I’ve been after [San Francisco Mayor] Gavin Newsome to come on the program for years. I mean, this is a big guy with a mouth who runs around, but he’s a coward. He won’t come on and debate me about this issue. Is Gavin proud of that vote? That’s my first question. Mayor, are you proud of that vote, and if so, why?
Source: http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/12/oreilly-responds/
Sorry, you may read that into what he said here......but I don't believe he was serious in the terrorist invitation, as I have said. You do?, fine.
I had a feeling I should have scrolled down first. Of course Tommy doesn't have a genuine response to make.
What a shock.
I had a feeling I should have scrolled down first. Of course Tommy doesn't have a genuine response to make.
Tommy rarely brings anything of value to the table.
Personally, I think it's happened about three times in as many years. And do you notice that even Jeter hasn't come in to defend him?
Tommy's surely bright enough to know that he's simply lost it in this argument. The fact that he doesn't admit it and move on would indicate that his ego is as big as all creation and/or he's got a touch of masochism in his psychological make-up.
On the other hand, maybe he's not angry--maybe he's only joking. Seems to me that Tommy's about as angry as O'Reilly, and he may also later claim that he wasn't serious.
[Side not to MMFA--can one of your technical service people make it so we can look at all comments at once, rather than be limited to 20 at a time? It takes forever to get through all the comments this way. Thanks!]
"Did he specifically say he was serious at first, then changed it later by saying it was only a joke?"
Feel free to look at this and explain what part of it sounds like a joke. Where does he say it was satirical? In fact he stands by exactly what he said and expands on it.
"You know, enough’s enough. This is life and death we’re talking about here. And you know, I’m from New York. There are dozens of people from my neighborhood on Long Island are now dead because of 9/11, and you people are telling me you’re not going to allow recruiting out there? Hey, it’s serious, and I think you guys need a wake-up call — not you guys, the people who voted against the military recruiting."
Then when the controversy didn't go away, he was just joking.
Tommy,
I think you have to really examine the tone in which O'Reilly made this "joke" The reality is that he was on one of his spittle flinging tirades and his tone suggested that these comments were the farthest thing from a joke. Now, that doesn't mean he really want the Coit Tower to be blown up, I don't believe that. But, he said these things in the heat of his emotions, he was pissed and it was a assinine statement to make. For him to pass it off as just a joke is simply misinformation. All the old geezers who make up the majority of his audience will believe what is essentially a lie. He deserves to be called on this one, as usual. Just my opinion though, that and four dollars will get you a gallon of gas.
Just my opinion though, that and four dollars will get you a gallon of gas.
Your opinion, however, is rooted in reality, which cannot be said of Tommy's opinion.
I think that is a pretty fair take. I am no OReilly fan at all, but I try to give him the benefit of the doubt and if he apologized, that would be the end of the whole thing with me.
There is no doubt in my mind that OReilly said his words in anger, but the way he reacted - to lie - is at the heart of this misinformation.
Chris,
Your opinions carry much weight with me because you evaluate items here fairly and honestly, I appreciate that.
I am in no way excusing what O'Reilly said by any means. And you know I am no fan of his, not by a longshot. But the bottom line here is whether he was serious here, or not. Not whether the "joke" was funny, etc......I have said numerous times it is not. But I don't believe O'Reilly wants terrorists to blow up Coit Tower, I just don't believe he wants that. Therefore, I believe he did not mean it seriously, he was making one of his stupid points again....he gets no pass from me. I am only commenting on the seriousness of his invitation, that's it. Not the worthiness of it, the humor of it, or anything else.
O'Reilly is a partisan, ego-driven windbag. I don't make any excuses for him. I am just trying to see this for what it was, that's all.
I am just trying to see this for what it was, that's all.
So how come everyone else here can see it for what it was - hate speech directed towards liberals - and you see it as some sort of joke?
I am done explaining it to you, so you are free to think whatever you'd like.
OK, I think your blinders prevent you from seeing anything that doesn't fit your preconceived prejudices.
I also think that whoever is paying you to be a trool isn't getting their money's worth.
I also think that whoever is paying you to be a trool isn't getting their money's worth.
Maybe they should demand a refund....
I am done explaining it to you, so you are free to think whatever you'd like.
You're not gonna dismiss me that easily, Tommy. You are wrong, and are just too pig-headed and/or too stupid to admit it. Period.
And now you've shown everybody at MMFA how far from reality you've drifted.
Actually it was quite easy to dismiss you.
Get over youself, your blustering doesn't impress me in the least.
Get over youself, your blustering doesn't impress me in the least.
And your so-called "intellect" doesn't impress anyone here, Tommy.
As I said, he has always maintained, as far as I know, that he was joking.
Yet we've shown you proof within this thread that he did NOT always maintain that it was a joke, and you've simply dismissed it. Because the proof - BO's own words - did not support your position; therefore, we must all be lying.....
btw, was he being satirical and trying to be "funny" when he said this?
"Hey, you know, if you want to ban military recruiting, fine, but I'm not going to give you another nickel of federal money. You know, if I'm the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium, and I say, "Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead."
And 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."
If you listen to the audio, he sounded pretty serious to me.
This is about being accountable for your words. If every time someone says something terrible, then two years later says "But see, I was just joking," You could get away with anything. There's no accountability in the MSM anymore, and O'Reilly's leading the charge.
How about... Hey, AlQaeda, you wanna blow up FOX News (and kill O'Reilly, Hannity, et als)? Go ahead!
Hahahaha...! Just joking... (Why isn't anyone else laughing?)
Bill O's rant was about being absurd to illustrate a point. Is this however the "conservative misinformation" MMFA exists for. This is like trying to debunk the National Enquirer. Why waste the time. Misinformation is when a news outlet purpously misrepresents a voting record, or a position on a bill, plants a fake story, or skews a poll in order to sway opinion. That's what I expect to see here. Not this kindergarten BS
This is about being accountable for your words. If every time someone says something terrible, then two years later says "But see, I was just joking," You could get away with anything.
On the above you are so right on point. The newscasters of my youth would never stoop so low as to interject such absurdity into an information piece. But Bill O is not on TV to broadcast news - he is there to give his opinion and those of us who don't like it are free to change the channel.
Dems Sol
He was angry and his tone was obvious when he made the statement. Does that mean he REALLY wanted a terrorist attack on S. F.? Probably not, but for him to essentially lie and say that he was merely joking when it is obvious he was heated emotionally at the time is misinformation, plain and simple.
Achris - I'm not going to tell you- you didn't hear what you think you heard. But for you to claim it as misinformation you would have to have been inside his head when he said it - and that's not something I'd wish on my worst enemy.
Look, you either believe he was serious or not. Parsing his words is ridiculous. I happen to think he made a very tasteless joke, MMFA, and you, and most here, disagree.
It happens.
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.
I get it now. Thanks, Tommy.
O'REILLY: "You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead."
How can anyone defend that comment? ...joking or not.
Tommy, if you want to just pass this off as a joke, tell me this: WHICH PART WAS THE PUNCH LINE ?
Rick, He was either serious or he was not. Obviously you and many here believe he was. I disagree.
Rick,
Come on, it was a joke in the context that he was not serious. There is no "punchline". Is that your defense that he was serious? Amazing.
O'Reilly could have stated;" I said something I didn't really mean, and I offended people--I'm sorry."
BUT NO! Instead, O'Reilly said it was a joke. He didn't say he something that he wasn't serious about. Therefore, since you feel obliged to defend him, WHAT WAS THE FUNNY PART ?
Did I say it was funny? No, it was not.
Then it wasn't a joke, was it?
all jokes aren't funny. That being said, I believe there is no doubt that O'Reilly was pissed and due to his emotional state, he said somehting he really meant at the time. Of course, that doesn't mean that in the end he would have taken pleasure in seeing such a thing. We all say things we mean at the time in an emotional state which we regret later. O'Reilly just chose to lie about it.
He was either serious or he was not.
You keep on about this. Are you Phil Hartman's ghost?
If your scenario played out that way and O'Reilly said they deserved it, then you would have your proof that he was most likely serious.
If and when that happens.
In a short period, you have responded 4 times to this item.
Sounds like YOU are the one who needs to "get over it" Tommy.
Speak your piece and go. Why are you still here?
It wouldn't have anything to do with a deep and pressing need to get the last word in every discussion, would it Tommy?
I think there's a pill for that now.
Admittedly, O'Reilly now claims, several years after his original statement, that it was a joke. I don't remember him saying it was a joke before.
O'Reilly, Limbaugh and their ilk, say whatever the hell they feel like saying, no matter how hurtful or un-American, then when called on it claim they it was comedy.
In fairness, Worrier, I hid hear him say it was a joke about a week afterwards.
Yes - a week afterwards. After several days of standing by what he said and city officials in San Francisco calling for Westwood One to fire him and the FCC to pull the license of the station that broadcast his hate-filled remarks. Only then did he switch to the "it-was-a-joke" defense.
Yes, it is my opinion. But to say O'Reilly was serious, when he says he was not, is far more of an opinion stretch than mine was. If someone asserts what they said was a joke, and another person disagrees, then it is incumbent upon that "other" person to prove it.
So far, I have not seen anyone prove that O'Reilly was serious in his tastelessness.
Worrier,
I think B.O. meant by joking only that B.O. wasn't serious about inviting Al Queda to bomb SF. It seems rather obvious he wasn't trying to be a comedian. ( BTW. I think the quote was in very bad taste.)
AA, then why does he feel the need to mis-represent himself, and why, a week after the comments aired on his radio show, did he omit the contested quote? After all, he was just joking, right?
He may not have been serious, but he wasn't "making a joke on San Francisco" like haha, that's funny joking. He said he was joking only after he realized that people may be upset by his comments, particularly people in San Francisco.
DB,
It seems to me that B.O. is simply saying he wasn't serious.
His tone at the time says it all AA. To me, it is similiar to saying things you regret in an emotional discussion i.e. argument. We have all done it. The difference is that O'Reilly feels the need to lie about it. there was nothing humorous in his tone when he originally said these things. That being said, I don't think he would take some type of Dick Dasterdly pleasure if something like this did happen, but the fact remains he said thiese things in an angry tone. We all say things we don't really mean but afterwards most of us don't pass our hurtful comments off as a joke. O'Reilly did and that is deplorable.
I agree about the tone. Bill was not trying to make a "joke" in the traditional sense. My interpretation is that he was trying to make a point by being caustically sarcastic. If I were him, I would have responded that the comment was sarcastic and not to be taken literally rather than saying he was joking.
But Bill shoots from the lip and many times he's hit by the ricochet. :-)
I'll grant you that Governor is only offering his opinion.
Indeed, you and Tommy are both correct. It's my opinion that O'Reilly was not going for laughs when he threatened the people of San Francisco.
He's very good at it. But like all bullies, he weasels out when called out on his BS.
Exactly. On the money Worrier.
Agreed. O'Reilly was not going for laughs when he bullied these particular Americans. Spot on.
Nobody ever said he was going for laughs Governor. Where any of you got that from is beyond me? Just because he was not serious in his terrorist invitation doesn't mean he was going for laughs. He was "joking" in a very tasteless manner, in other words he was not being serious.
I have no clue how to make it any plainer than that for you. I tried.
Nobody ever said he was going for laughs Governor. Where any of you got that from is beyond me?
I don't think you know what the "?" is for. That aside, O'Reilly was not trying to be funny, was not being not serious, and was not joking.
Nobody ever said he was going for laughs Governor. Where any of you got that from is beyond me?
Perhaps because you have said many times that BillO was joking? Isn't the purpose of a "joke" to "go for laughs?"
English isn't really your first language, is it? Your first language must be gibberish.
I am not defending it at all. It was a horrible and tasteless comment, but you either believe he was serious, or you don't. If you do, then that is only your opinion, it is not some fact. People have different opinions, so what?
Some of you just can't accept that.
Oh no. We accept it.
No problem.
We just don't want to hear it ad nauseam from you, Captain Above-it-all.
I happen to think he made a very tasteless joke, MMFA, and you, and most here, disagree.
Tommy - did it ever occur to you that MMFA and most people here are RIGHT and you are WRONG????
Once, but I got a pill from Deeznuts for that.
Were those the same pills Limbaugh used?
I think we should celebrate Attack O'Reilly Week by ordering pizza & beer. And maybe some cake & ice cream. Balloons would be nice. Streamers.
When is Attack Limbaugh Week? Maybe we could have a clambake for that?
Well my sweet Julia I have an insatiable appetite for food and um...other things.
You know like sports, politics. Get your mind out of the gutter ;-)
Well ok, that too....
Quit it you incorrigible flirt. Hey I included you in a limerick along about post 190 or so. This thread is getting long. I tried to go to the other thread posted so far today and it just wasn't as fun. But I think my limit is up for today (and probably the rest of the week :-0)
I just saw the limerick a few minutes ago [smile] & I'm sitting here trying to write one for you. I'll place it under yours when it's completed. It could take hours....so check in later :-)
Yeah the other thread is a bore. Of course I could actually get some work done instead of playing here...
I think we should celebrate Attack O'Reilly Week by ordering pizza & beer.
N, Jeter - you celeberate "Attack O'Reilly Week" by shouting "Where's my M-F-ing iced tea?" :-)
Ha! You're right Wiz, how could I forget about that ;-)
I hereby put you in charge of refreshments for any future Attack [insert Con name] Week.
OK, a couple of things, Tommy. 1) If he does not wish it rehashed, maybe Bill should stop bringing it up. He's certainly capable of not bringing things up; I've seen him avoid any mention of Andrea Mackris for years. 2) Why do you waste time asking why something is here? It seems like someone taking the time to log onto a newspaper poll so they can answer "No opinion". Why waste the time? Just skip it and move on.
And yes, I realize that I just did a version of that very thing, but my curiosity is killing me.
That someone jokes doesn't mean they don't mean it.
If you listen to the original audio, it is CLEAR that when he said those words, he meant it, whether he was joking or not.
Wow ... MM is off to a blazing start this week with this stunning example of "conservative misinformation." </sarc>
Pretty weak, MM, IMHO.
Explain thyself.
O'Reilly misrepresented his prior comments.
It is misinformation. It is conservative misinformation.
Thus it unquestionably belongs here. The only think weak and/or lame here is you WITHers.
"Pretty weak, IMHO... shoes89
================================================
Projecting again, Mis-Ino Guy?
Wow ... MM is off to a blazing start this week with this stunning example of "conservative misinformation." </sarc>
Pretty weak, MM, IMHO.
Oh, look - Shoes slithered out from under her rock......
Here's a cyber towel to clean up the mess, WCP. Sorry.
I guess Bull is going for the "Ann Coulter Kill Liberals" award.
JJ, isn't this the same funny guy that wrote a book for kids? I guess it was a comedy. Mr. O'Reilly is not a comedian. If he wants to be taken seriously...I'll stop there. He can never be taken seriously because heis what he is.
P.S. I agree, he rehashed the subject, not the Speaker of the House. I just had to write that so that our Con/republan friends can think about it.
Come on now, "think", you are just asking way too much of them.
Oh, can anybody tell me when the Bull O'Lielly Comedy hour is on? I have lost track.
"O'Reilly has previously distorted the nature of his comments."
Duh...! What else is new?
It's not so much the "conservative" point of view espoused by O'Reilly and FOX that bothers me as much as how they lie. They never admit or correct themselves when they're wrong and they will always distort their offensive statements when called to task by "liberals". A sorry bunch, indeed...
"t's not so much the "conservative" point of view espoused by O'Reilly and FOX that bothers me as much as how they lie."
I think that's the problem most everyone here has with them, including Tommy, when he's not on his WITHing rampage.
My problem with Fox is not their "lying", it is the way their opinion shows focus only on one point of view, coming from the "bad Democrats" viewpoint all the time.
As for their straight news reporting, I don't watch it hardly at all. And considering there is very little "misinformation" here based on that, but nearly all of it comes from their opinionators and commentators.
Are you talking about their commentators or their straight news reporters?
Obviously the former, because they have none of the latter.
Are you talking about their commentators or their straight news reporters?
Obviously the former, because they have none of the latter.
I'm pretty sure they don't have any gay news reporters at Faux News. :-)
Irony,
Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but I don't think your point is confined to just those on the right. Maybe if you had some examples of left wing commentators apologizing for equally tactless remarks, you might be a bit more convincing.
ps. I believe Bill O. is a bloviating windbag who jumped the shark a long time ago. :-)
Right, AA, because no liberal commentator has EVER apologized for saying something tactless. Right?
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=12401
Kyle,
Nice to know you have Irony's back. Thanks for being a tad more convincing. :-)
Keith Olbermann has apologized for this sort of thing before; sometimes when it was something a substitute host has said/done. Most recently:
"Howard Fineman suggested that some unnamed super superdelegate was going to have to find a way to persuade her, and Olbermann answered: 'Right. Somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.'"
Today, Olbermann apologized. "It is a metaphor. I apologize: the generic 'he' gender could imply something untoward," Olbermann said, in a statement MSNBC spokesperson Alana Russo forwarded me a few minutes ago. "It should've been 'only the other comes out -- from a political point of view.'"
Not buying Olbermann's explanation.
Sounds like he borrowed a page from Rush's handbook on how to try & weasal his way out of what he got caught saying.
Oh please. I was obviously joking.
Didn't you see my winky face ;-)
I always add a ;-) so folks know I'm not being serious.
Wildcat,
I was just playing off of Snoop's post.
I have in fact heard Rush apologize before but not for anything major related towards Dem/Libs. He may have, but I never heard it.
He has apologized & corrected himself regarding something he said & then found out he was wrong about. And no I can't give you an example off the top of my head, but I have heard him do so.
I did write that any apology Rush might have given would probably be as sincere as Olbermann's recent apology. Another words, meaningless.
I have never seen/heard Limbaugh even PRETEND to apologize for anything he has said.
Rush said that Sherrod Brown, Democratic US Senator from Ohio, is black and the the Democrats were going to take advantage of that.
Within the same hour, a caller told him that he was mistaken. Rush immediately responded that if true he would apologize for the inaccuracy. Later in the show, Rush said he was wrong, Sherrod Brown is white, and he apologized for stating otherwise.
Still, to use the Tommy defense, do you think Olbermann really wanted Clinton left unconscious or dead in a room?
Maybe "she says sheepishly" :-0)
No. Not literally. But he needs his hump busted for saying something stupid.
O'Reilly's dishonest self-martyrdom is pathetic.
"She won't talk to me. In fact, she tried to get me fired because I made a joke out of San Francisco."
Oh REALLY???
"She didn't call for Fox or Westwood One, which carries O'Reilly's daily radio show in 400 markets, to discipline the commentator. 'I don't have time to think about Bill O'Reilly's employment status, but this is offensive to San Francisco,' she said. 'The American people know what's funny and what's not. And Fox goes ahead on this at its own peril.'"
And Fox goes ahead on this at its own peril.
So BOR said Pelosi tried to get him fired, which Pelosi denies...
But then comes the quote that BOR's employer "goes ahead on this at its own peril."
So Pelosi THREATENED BOR's employer, but never never never asked that he be fired.
OKaaaaaaaay!!!
if Fox keeps it up, I'm taking a shotgun
There you go again, confusing Pelosi's tactics with Cheney's...
Oh, like maybe the Democrats could refuse to take part in any debates on Fox unless they fire O'Reilly.
Oh, wait, they ALREADY do that.
Now, THER'ES a good example of someone telling a joke that wasn't even remotely funny.
Way to have Tommy's back.
Miss,
I think Pelosi was talking about Fox's credibility and the way many may tune them out after such comments - "at their own peril".
I don't think she was speaking of getting involved or some pressure of any kind. If she was, she would be wrong, of course.
Tommy,
I have only heard the word "peril" used in three cases:
Maybe the Speaker was referring to a loss of journalistic integrity or similar, as you suggest. Without hearing her tone, I got the impression she was using the equivalent of the parental "or ELSE".
My impression of politicians might be unduly low, but I think that they have staffs that do "dirty work" for them and would not put it past members of either party trying to pressure the licensed media, like broadcast stations, in a way they could not pull with print media.
Before anybody asks, no I do not have proof of any kind, just an impression.
Somehow my 3 examples came up in microprint. Here they are full size:
I have only heard the word "peril" used in three cases:
--deadly, like diseases and other dangerous situations
--jokingly, as in Halloween haunted trails
--the old serials, like "The Perils of Pauline", with poor Pauline tied up by an evildoer and set on railroad tracks just before the train was due.
"Its own peril" is a threat?
What was the threat, specifically?
Is it remotely possible that she had misplaced hopes that the American people could come to their senses and reject the sensationalist crap that is Fox News?
Wow...this is certainly an anal retentive effort by mmfa. O'Reilly never seriously advocated that the terrorists blow up San Francisco...it was satirical.
Just like Olbermann's recent Hillary comment...does anyone really think he was serious about someone beating the crap out of Hillary?
Christ on a bicycle...lighten up mmfa.
I think Christ rode by donkey. Please do not use his name in vain.
Julia,
I realize this is off topic. but if you like, would you explain why you think that was taking the Lord's name in vain?
Well, there should have been beagles around back then. He would have had a little schwing with his schwinn.
I thought urinating on people's leg was my job.
Actually, it's BillO's job. He then tells people that it's raining.
DB,
Sort of like saying "GD America"? (sorry. I couldn't resist.)
AA,
Did you watch Wright on Bill Moyers this wknd? If not, I would highly recommend you see the controversial quotes you reference in context.
When you say it in the pejorative sense (which Wright did not) then yes, completely. Of course, he wasn't saying goddam America. He was saying God Damn America, which, with moral authority, is akin to saying God Damned Sodom and Gomorrah. Just because it's our country doesn't make it blasphemous.
I mean really, "Thou shalt not kill" is a damnable offense, is it not? Or do you not believe the Ten Commandments hold any sway?
You know what's funny about the whole Rev. Wright thing? All these Republicans are bashing him for saying we deserved 9/11. Know who else said that? I'll give you a hint...more than a few of the righties on here had expressed the sentiment that he should be President.
DB,
Arguing that Wright did not mean "GD America" in a pejorative sense especially when it came from Wright in the context of his speech is the funniest Wright apology I've yet heard.
In effect you are arguing that Wright's is indeed calling on God to damn the U.S.
Remind me not to hire you as my lawyer. :-)
AA,
I'll ask you again, did you watch the sermon in context on Moyers' program? If not, check it out here:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/watch.html
Let me know what you think.
Fried,
If you have a point to make, then make it.
AA,
I just thought you would be interested, because you seem like a very fair person, to hear Wright's G-D America quote in its context. I would hope that since you are willing to give O'Reilly the benefit of the doubt when he said his comment was a joke that you would show the same courtesy to Reverend Wright.
I just thought you would like the opportunity to respond to more of his sermon and not just the inflammatory soundbite you have been hearing in the news.
Good job trying to misrepresent what I said. I'm not saying he's calling on God (back in 2001) to Damn America, I'm saying that he said God already damned us, and was specifically saying that in reference to 9/11. It's not anything different from what Falwell or Robertson or Hagee said. Of course, if you won't listen to the rest of his speech, you won't get that.
Like I said, killing is a damnable offense. Prove me otherwise and I'll concede my point and vote for McCain in the fall.
And you still didn't guess who the former Presidential candidate was who said we deserved 9/11. It was Ron Paul!
DB,
I do not think I am the one misrepresenting Wright's meaning or words. I think you are in trying to defend what is in reality anti-American hate speech. Just try putting those words in the mouth of anyone on the right and see how you would react.
Of course it depends on which religion one follows, but in my tradition, killing in and of itself is not a damnable offense. One must judge each specific action. After all, accidents happen where people die. I know of an instance where a teenager hit a patch of black ice on a freeway and slammed into a parked semi, killing the boy. The driver of the truck had stopped to help another car that had skidded off the highway. Is the driver of the truck damned? Stopping his rig killed the boy.
A more general argument is killing an intruder intent on killing you or your family. That is not damnable, it is commendable.
AA, if someone on the right said "God Damn America for killing innocent children" then I would support their right to say it. I don't think it's anti-American hate speech from whatever side you look at it.
"I do not think I am the one misrepresenting Wright's meaning or words. I think you are in trying to defend what is in reality anti-American hate speech."
Well then we disagree. And if it's anti-American hate speech, then so is "If America does not stop pressuring Israel to give up land, I believe that God will... very likely release the terrorists [again]... and this nation is going to go through a bloodbath that you have permitted because... you have disobeyed the law of God."
It's also anti-American hate speech to wish that terrorists attack the Coit Tower.
It's also anti-American hate speech every time an announcer says "Fair and Balanced, this is Fox News". :-)
Solon,
Deja Vu all over again? We've been down this road before. You are judging me in your post are you not? MMFA judges some conservative with every thread they start. Why do you not call them out?
Actually, we both know I am simply stating my opinion. You avail yourself the right to disagree and express your own opinion.
Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?
Oh, I was just kidding...
Was that kidding in a theatrical or historical context.
We do have an overpopulation of goons. Many looking for a reason to be violent, and/or righteously angry. Just point them at a deserving target.
Al Qaeda can have Wesley, but everyone else is off limits. you want to blow up Wesley? Go ahead
I'll say I was joking in a few days, but until then take those comments as you wish!
Just like Olbermann's recent Hillary comment...does anyone really think he was serious about someone beating the crap out of Hillary?
Exactly Wes. But you know how it goes, Con serious...Lib not serious.
O'Reilly was going for humor with a sprinkle of sarcasm. I would guess Olbermann was also.
I don't buy Olbermann's apology one bit. It rings hollow. Maybe if he hadn't spent the past several months ripping nightly into Hillary it might sound sincere.
Sure, but at least he said he was sorry, whether he meant it or not.
Huh? I had to read that twice. Setting the bar kinda low aren't you?
An insincere apology is worthless.
I'd rather no apology than one that wasn't genuine.
Jeter,
I would argue that B.O. was going for the sarcasm without the humor.
I would argue that B.O. was going for the sarcasm without the humor.
Good point. Though I think some humor was involved. I may have gotten it backwards. It was sarcasm with a bit of humor. Same goes for Olbermann.
I thought she was a neo nazi commie pinko gay loving tax raising terrorist sympathizer
But Snoop, isn't that the definition of a Democrat? ;-)
Why is it that conservatives' idea of satire always ends up with something being blown up, or somebody being killed and/or raped?
Is that what passes for insightful, humorous commentary?
Why do these wingnuts get a pass?
Good point Solon. The reality is that he really meant what he said at the time because, I believe, he let his emotions get the better of him. Perhpas five minutes later he realized he didn't want people to die, but it sure wasn't no damn joke. To me tht is the point of this whole issue which is his lying after the fact. The man is deplorable and for the life of me I can't figure out why he still has 2 million viewers each night when they know he is a pervert.
(I'd rather talk about why all the news channels except PBS are ignoring the retired military analysts/propaganda spreaders story)
Mary, to follow the story would certainly lead to the conclusion that the MSM was carrying the water for this invasion and did NO due diligence in investigating the claims made by Bush and Co.
Who needs that kind of self-examination? A media that has largely given up any kind of investigative reporting?
for g**'s sake is there any sanity left in this country
o the horror
ok
i feel better now
Mr. Loofah...i mean, O'Really (Flat Earthist that he is)
would not be able to bloviate all over the
Secularly Invented bandwidths
"How the Bill of Rights and Liberals are Destroying America, and how We can get Coit Tower and San Francisco Values Depreciated" by Bill O'Lielly"
from the NYT Book Review: "the writer of this preposterous tome declares that the Bill of Rights (except for the 2nd Amendment) contains dangerous liberal ideas that should never have been tacked on to the Constitution."
from National Review ONline: "At last, a definitive answer to the creeping socialism of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and other liberals. In his bold new best seller, Bill O'Lielly takes on the quaint New Age Philosophies expressed in the Freedom of Speech, Search and Seizure and habeas corpus clauses which have led to our current decadent society."
NewsMax review: "The antidote against thought for every hard headed conservative."
People who bought this book also bought:
"Defeating Liberalism at the Ballot Box" by Will B. Cheatin
and "Joseph McCarthy: Great American Patriot" by Apollo Gist
Mary,
I think you've struck on something there. I look forward to more book reviews. :-)
Thanks for the laughs!
That is correct. I heard him say it too and he sounded angry when he said it. He made no comment at the time saying he was joking.
It was only after he caught grief for it that he pulled out the "it was a satrical riff" scenario....days later. And even then, when he discussed what he originally said calling it satire, he left out the part about Al Qaeda blowing up Coit Tower just like he did this time.
Obviously BillO doesn't want his audience to know about the entirety of his comments otherwise he would have mentioned it all. He doesn't have the guts to stand behind his own past comments.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200511150003
Here's a link to MMFA's original report about BO's comments. Does anyone want to try and convince me that he was only joking????
http://mediamatters.org/items/200511100008
Ah, the old joke defense. I've posted something similar before. But what the heck. Since O'Reilly isn't against repeating himself, why should I balk at the same.
The real joke is O'Reilly apologists jumping to his defense with the line "he was only joking". How do we know? Because Bill says so. They take Bill at his word because he has never lied about anything. Not awards he's won or sexually inappropriate advances. Nothing. A totally upright guy with nothing to hide. So we must take him at his word that he is acting in the capacity as some type of comedic performer or comedic talent. Well then, let's take a look at Bill's comedy chops:
How many times has Bill appeared on stage as comedian? ZERO. How many Comedy Central, HBO and/or Showtime comedy specials does he have? ZERO. The number of comedy shows or movies he has written for? ZERO. Comedy books? ZERO (he did write a piece of fiction that was unintentionally funny...Robo the crack head pimp, now that cracks me up).
So Bill O'Reilly is a comedian/jokester but has yet to follow the career path of a comedian even once.
Conclusion: Bill O'Reilly and his fans use jokes and comedy as excuses for Bill's vicious bile so as to facilitate the spewing of yet more vicious bile.
And that's no joke.
Randy
And Billo has never been in a Police Academy film , either... ;>)
But I have reason to believe he was one of the shirtless guys I saw arrested on "COPS" a while back.....
I found this through a Goole search - more proof that Bill O'reilly was not joking when he suggested that terrorists should attack SF, but used that as a lame excuse after getting heat for his inappropriate remarks:
O'Reilly Resorts To McCarthyism, Plans To Publish Online Enemies List»
Last Tuesday, Bill O'Reilly encouraged terrorists to target San Francisco because he was upset that the city voted to ban military recruiters from high-school and college campuses. O'Reilly said "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."
At first, O'Reilly defended his comments as "not controversial." That didn't seem to work, so tonight he claimed the whole thing was a "satirical riff."
In O'Reilly's view the only real problem is the "internet smear sites" drawing attention to his comments:
Fairly typical comments from O'Reilly. But he added an unusual twist. O'Reilly promised to publish the names of everyone who supported these "internet smear sites" on his website:
It's unclear where O'Reilly would find such a list. But since he has labeled everyone who supports websites like MediaMatters.org and ThinkProgress.org as "anti-military" it seems to be an effort to intimidate and shame our readers.
At the time this post was published, the promised list doesn't appear on billoreilly.com. Stay tuned for updates.
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/14/oreilly-mccarthyism/
It's a fact, that bill o'reilly used a Public Resource, by way of a privileged FCC License to use the PUBLIC AIRWAVES, to invite an attack on the lives of the People of San Francisco, just for the purpose of trying to influence and manipulate People's political opinions (about Iraq, if you recall the specific context of the event)... and to argue that he meant it figuratively or humorously or facetiously or whatever, still means the guy is an irresponsible political "media" hack, using our PUBLIC AIRWAVES for his (or actually his employer's) personal politcal platform. And that's a fact.
Also, this ad in which Ms. Pelosi appears with newt gingrich, to lend some sort of incredible public relations credibility to newt (and whatever schemes it is that he's hired to work, under the incredible guise that he wants to see REGULATIONS that would reduce EMISSIONS)....
It's incredible, and has me doubting Ms. Pelosi's sharpness of mind, or her sanity even, or just maybe her integrity.
Ask yourself: Why would such a "climate change denial" guy as o'reilly is (and you know he is, from reading these MMFA pages), why is he showing this ad on his show? Why does he show the ad, and have newt on also, to boost his incredible credibility on this matter? Why did o'reilly air the name of the website wecansolveit.org, in running the ad?
Because it's an endorsement of newt gingrich, and whatever scheme he's working on... it's Ms. Pelosi, all empty-headed but smiling warmly (at newt's grotesque head and face), endorsing him... endorsing him with the word "together".
She's either an extraordinary dope in these matters, or she has no integrity, or both... I don't truly know.
Seeing Ms. Pelosi lend incredible credibility to newt gingrich in this matter, is like seeing the NYC Police Commissioner appear in an ad with an organized crime boss, saying "together we can reduce crime"... you'd likewise doubt either the sanity or the integrity of the Commissioner, if you saw such an ad as that.
And so important in these things, that I have not the space to type the many words about it, is the fact that at present the truly substantial and relevant matter of enacting REGULATIONS to reduce EMISSIONS, is being side-tracked in favor of an endless and worthless argument about "climate change"... as a matter of fact, it is the all-too-obvious-by-now tactic of the industries affected by REGULATIONS to reduce EMISSIONS, to talk not about REGULATIONS or EMISSIONS or even be caught dead saying those words, but instead to steer the debate towards the endlessly controversial topic of "climate change", and to say that word instead of those other words... as you can see from the ad, that it was the incredible newt who said "climate change"...
The incredible newt, who is now highlighted in an ad, where Ms. Pelosi lends him some of her fast-waning credibility... and bill o'reilly airs it on his show... makes sense, doesn't it.
Hey, if Al Qaeda wants to fly airplanes into the WTC, then go ahead!
See, I'm joking, but see how it's not funny? Same thing for O'Reilly's comment. Poor taste, or not, or joke or not, it was plain old straight up a whole boatload of stoopid.