I don’t like Daily Kos, but Dodd is right: O’Reilly makes the anti-Kos position seem cartoonish and ridiculous. Oh, and O’Reilly did in fact say what Dodd claimed he said.
How O’Reilly can get away with blatant lying is really unbelievable?? He does this all the time too. He constantly denies saying things that are saved on video and audio forever!!! Only in a world with Fox News can a man like this continue to have such a high-profile job.
The degree/extent of hateful language on Daily Kos is a matter open to interpretation. I probably agree more with you than with Dodd about it, but still, it’s something reasonable people can disagree over: what constitutes “hateful garbage” as opposed to mere vocal dissent/satire? To what extent should Kos, the site, be blamed for the hateful garbage of Kos commenters and diarists? Is the site truly dominated by hateful garbage, or is that just something that happens around the edges? etc. etc.
On the other hand, that O’Reilly said what Dodd claimed he said is NOT open to interpretation, nor is it something reasonable people can disagree over. He said it, and then he lied and claimed he hadn’t said it. Period.
Dodd tried to completely ignore the substance of the Daily Kos (e.g., the pic of Lieberman blowing Bush) and change the subject to O’Reilly going after the Daily Kos strictly because of ideology. But earlier this week O’Reilly was just as vigorous in going after the proprietor of a right wing hate site containing vitriolic posts aimed at, e.g., Hillary Clinton. O’Reilly may be full of crap about not saying whatever stupid thing he said in the past, but no less than Dodd, who could just as easily be lampooned as going down on Markos Moulitsas.
Bill O’s website currently contains numerous posts referring to HC as a Nazi and various other such speech, so I expect Joe Mama to begin vigorously advocating against Bill O’Reilly’s website.
Dodd wasn’t “ignoring” anything; his whole point was that there was no real substance to O’Reilly’s beef, that the whole thing was a giant irrelevant distraction, and that therefore he wasn’t going to dignify it with a full response because that feeds the beast. He did, however, say that of course he’s not OK with that particular photoshop… and he explained fairly clearly why he doesn’t feel the need to distance himself from the whole site because of that one photoshop. What more do you want? You might disagree with his answer, but he did answer (despite O’Reilly’s obnoxious attempts to not let him get in a word in edgewise).
Besides, honestly - c’mon - the particular thing O’Reilly pointed to wasn’t like the infamous blackface Lieberman - it was just a crude gay-blowjob joke thingy. Who cares? And I say that as a Lieberman fan who doesn’t like Kos and supports gay rights! But really. It’s no more or less offensive, in my eyes, than the actual ideological rhetoric about Lieberman that comes routinely from the Left, which was really Dodd’s point: O’Reilly’s primary gripe is with the ideological message, not the medium.
As for O’Reilly going after a right-wing hate site, bully for him, though I’d have to know more details to know whether the two things are comparable. Regardless, I think Dodd certainly got the better of this particular exchange.
O’Reilly is the bearded woman of the fox news channel. Everyone tunes in to see how a human being can actually hold such ridiculous opinions. That said, I frequent the circus just about every week.
Bill O’s website currently contains numerous posts referring to HC as a Nazi and various other such speech, so I expect Joe Mama to begin vigorously advocating against Bill O’Reilly’s website.
I don’t read Bill O’Reilly’s website. Can you link to an example?
Dodd wasn’t “ignoring” anything; his whole point was that there was no real substance to O’Reilly’s beef, that the whole thing was a giant irrelevant distraction, and that therefore he wasn’t going to dignify it with a full response because that feeds the beast. He did, however, say that of course he’s not OK with that particular photoshop… and he explained fairly clearly why he doesn’t feel the need to distance himself from the whole site because of that one photoshop. What more do you want? You might disagree with his answer, but he did answer (despite O’Reilly’s obnoxious attempts to not let him get in a word in edgewise).
We’ll have to agree to disagree. Dodd did say the obligatory “of course he’s not OK with that” (the equivalent of clearing his throat), but only after creating his own “giant irrelevant distraction” by impugning the motives of O’Reilly in going after Daily Kos (and doing so in no less an obnoxious fashion than O’Reilly re talking over someone). As I pointed out, O’Reilly has gone after right-wing hate sites as well, albeit less frequently since none on the right seem to be as popular as the Daily Kos is on the left. What you say is “bully for him” is also direct proof that Dodd is wrong in impugning O’Reilly’s motive as being solely based on ideology. If I can find a clip of that particular show, I’ll link to it.
If I remember correctly, the guy O’Reilly took to task on his show this week for having right-wing hate speech on his site was from www.freerepublic.com
So would you be ok with O’Reilly criticizing this site if Brendan hosted a forum for the Democratic candidates and one of AA’s more vitriolic posts about Bush was pointed out as an example of the site as a whole? If Daily Kos was a site dedicated to posting photoshopped pictures of republicans in poor taste then he might have a point, but i agree that his criticism is not only weak but incredibly hipocritical
I don’t visit his forums either (why would I put $5 a month in that sexual harassing liar’s pocket), but here are some postings by a person that has over 1,000 posts on his site.
I tried to post the snapshot of the page, but I couldn’t get it to work. Basically, a long-time “premium” O’Reilly subscriber says he will get a shotgun ready if HC is elected president.
Here’s another shining beacon of wisdom from O’Reilly’s forum:
“Is the US ready for a black President? The question should be, during a time of war with terrorism, Is America ready for a MUSLIM president? Barak Hussein OBAMA.. it is the pride of Muslims to name their children OSAMA.. and the closest thing to OSAMA is OBAMA… Please…. They will have pulled of the biggest HUDNA of all… a MUSLIM president right under our noses.. in front of our eyes.. while he denies he’s a Muslim, he belongs to a very unconventional “christian” church. A closer study of the man, his backers and his history should PREVENT him from ever holding HIGHER offices… lvs”
There are dozens of more examples and I believe Jane Hall brought up a few of them during an appearance on Bill-O’s show. Of course, he accused her of lying and said there were no such things. Just like Bill claimed he never said al-Qaeda should be free to blow up Coit Tower. Or his claims that he has never told a guest to “shut-up”. I believe there is a youtube video that shows him telling guests to shut up almost 100 times. JoeMama, how can you possibly defend a man that constantly lies all the time??? These aren’t small I forgot what I said lies either, they are constant lies about things he said that can be proven by video and audio. And for the record, I do not attribute the posts on the website to O’Reilly to Bill-O b/c that would be ridiculous and is exactly what Bill-O is doing in regard to Daily Kos. I look forward to his report advocating the take down of the vicious hate-site billoreilly.com.
Sorry about my lack of knowledge regarding how to post a website address, but the site provided is another link to a screenshot of one of O’Reilly’s forum pages.
“JoeMama, how can you possibly defend a man that constantly lies all the time???”
Are you asking how he can defend Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, The Republicans, or just O’Reilly? His defense on all those is that the Clinton’s said the same thing. As if there were any difference between the Clintons and all the other corrupt scumbag republicans.
I was referring to O’Reilly. I realize there are differences of opinion among political leaders, but how in the world can anyone watch, let alone defend, this guy?? And he has the highest rated show on cable news?? Sometimes it is scary how ill-informed the American public is today.
Brendan - did you read the transcript of what O’Reilly actually said about al-Qaeda and SF ? Can you tell me what was objectionable about what he said ?
You, yourself, just uttered “…wasn’t like the infamous blackface Lieberman - it was just a crude gay-blowjob joke thingy. Who cares? “ … {my emphasis} …
“just” ? For a lotta folk, they are “just” as offended by a “a crude gay-blowjob joke thingy” as others are by “the infamous blackface Lieberman “ …
I have two direct comments on this thing …
1) The *FACT* that Koxs leaves the ‘offending’ picture up on the site for a prolonged period (a year?) implies implicit approval or condoning … which is the point O’Reilly was making …
2) O’Reilly ended up by saying at the end of the clip (my paraphrasing) “Go take a look at the Kos site for yourself and make up your own mind” … *that* is an attitude worthy of respect, is it not ?
The *FACT* that Koxs leaves the ‘offending’ picture up on the site for a prolonged period (a year?) implies implicit approval or condoning … which is the point O’Reilly was making …
NO IT DOES NOT.
Or do you think that, whenever I leave “offending” comments up on my blog (you know I almost never delete anything), that means I therefore implicitly approve of them? So, I implicitly approve of every comment by you, and David K., and Joe Mama, and dcl, and Sandy Underpants, and Andrew, and Coach Leahy, and Champion Sound, and everyone else who may ever have said anything here on the blog that might have offended anybody?? That’s an awful lot of contradictory crap for me to implicitly approve of!!
Blogmasters should never be presumed to “approve” of something just because it appears in comments (or in Kos’s case, diaries) on their site. To presume that is to force people to suppress free and open discourse in order to preserve their own reputations. Bullshit, utter bullshit.
1) Whether what O’Reilly said about SF was objectionable isn’t the point. The point is that Dodd said he said it, and he denied saying it. If O’Reilly wanted to say, “I said that, but it wasn’t objectionable,” or “I said that, but it was taken out of context,” that would be different. But he denied saying it. Therefore, simply proving that he said it proves he’s a liar; context, meaning, and offensiveness are irrelevant.
2) People are offended by different things, obviously, but I think the “gay-blowjob joke thingy” is clearly less offensive than blackface, if for no other reason than that the point of the joke really doesn’t have anything to do with saying that Lieberman (or Bush) is gay — the point is that Lieberman is shown giving Bush a blowjob, which is seen as a sign of subservience and eagerness to please. The “gay” thing is just a “kicker” — it’s the blowjob that’s the joke. If Lieberman were a woman, the joke would work just as well, or almost as well. Of course, then it would be considered sexist rather than homophobic. Really, I’d say it’s neither — it’s just a dumb, unfunny blowjob joke. It certainly doesn’t rise to the level of offensiveness of blatant racism like the blackface thing (or Ann Coulter calling John Edwards a “fag”).
Brendan #21 - Kos (the site) has a pattern, a history, a track-record of deleting coments of which it doesn’t approve … by leaving a comment/picture in place for a prolonge period while having such a track-record , the site is implicitly giving the comment/picture its approval - otherwise, it would have deleted it …
Your track record is to bend over backwards not to delete comments (which attitude *I* personally respect) - and you state very publicly *why* you have deleted something when you do make an exception … you publicly leave in place comments with which you are not in agreement, and, when they are sufficiently tasteless, you put yourself on record as having that opinion … that makes *your* site different from the Kos site …
(grin) When you have chosen “to suppress free and open discourse”, it has been for explicit expressed reasons …
Let us face it - whether you like it or not when I utter the words, you run your blog in an honourable and up-front manner … get used to it, Loy the Younger !
Although I do not particularly support Dodd politically, I think that he handled himself well in this “interview”, refusing to allow Bill O’Reilly to trap him. I am also continually astonished that O’Reilly, who actually seemed quite intelligent and dignified when he was a news anchor years ago in Boston, is little more than the verbal equivalent of a playground bully.
1) About 1:35 into the clip, Dodd says to O’Reilly “There are a lot of things that you say are vile on a daily basis” followed at 2:20 by “There are thousands on your posting as well everyday” … O’Reilly replies there aren’t any … Dodd responds at 02:25 “… talking about alQaeda attacking San Francisco … that’s not offensive ?”
So Dodd is explicitly saying that what O’Reilly said was offensive - *your* witness opened *that* line of questioning himself … Dodd himself made the offensiveness (or not) a relevant factor …
The transcript of what O’reilly said back then clearly shows that he (my paraphrasing)
said roughly, “If I’n the President, I say to SF “If you prevent military recruiting here in SF, and if al Qaeda blows you up, don’t come running to us feds for help !”" - which I believe to be an honest (and, actually, reasonable) statement from O’Reilly …
Wrong Alasdair, he said if SF wants to prevent military recruiting, we should let them go and tell al-Qaeda that SF is an open target. He specifically said, “You want to blow up Coit Tower? Go ahead.”
“Dodd himself made the offensiveness (or not) a relevant factor …” Bullshit. O’Reilly made the offensiveness the issue from the get-go of his personal jihad against Daily Kos, the convention, and anyone associated with it. Dodd simply said its ridiculous for Bill-O to complain about offensive comments from a few random people on a site that gets over 500,000 hits a day when he continually makes offensive statements every day on his vast media empire.
Alasdair’s argument basically breaks down like this: Photoshopped image of Lieberman going down on Bush –> so offensive that any elected official should avoid any contact with the total Daily Kos site and anything connected with it. Inviting al-Q attacks on a major US city –> totally reasonable and appropriate political speech from the fine folks at fair and balanced Fox News.
I thought O’Reilly’s comment was a simple “you don’t like the hand that protects you, fine, we won’t protect you” comment, not encouraging or hoping it happens. But it’s been a long time.
I rather vote O’Reilly for president over Chris “the Dud” Dodd anyday. Dodd is really a player, in more ones than one and that’s all I have to say about the senator.
In other news, dog bites man… No seriously, is any of this in anyway surprising, new, different, or unusual? I’m unclear as to why we are having this conversation.
“I rather vote O’Reilly for president over Chris “the Dud” Dodd anyday. Dodd is really a player, in more ones than one and that’s all I have to say about the senator.”
Genius commentary. I don’t know anything about Chris Dodd’s personal life, so I won’t comment about that. And if he is a philanderer there is no excuse and it is reprehensible. But to say you’d rather have Bill “falafel” O’Reilly b/c your problem with Dodd involves his personal life is ridiculous. I suggest you go to thesmokinggun.com and search Bill O’Reilly. After you get done reading the complaint (which Bill settled as soon as he possibly could) then we can talk about what a great man he is, deserving of all our respect.
didn’t they settle that case in the earliest stages for like 50,000. If you settle a case againt a major celebrity for 50,000, you did not have a case.
Try millions and millions 4-7. A week after the settlement she paid cash for a place that cost over a $1 million. As if the fact that Bill-O went on TV and vowed to fight with everything he had and then settled no more than a week later shouldn’t clue you in to how guilty he was. Why do all of you people spend so much time and energy defending this dolt? Does he really mean that much to the conservative cause? That is the second time in this thread that you’ve tried to defend the indefensible. And in both cases you were wrong.
“Oh, and O’Reilly did in fact say what Dodd claimed he said.”
Technically O’Reilly’s not lying on this particular point, but it’s definitely a mental reservation. O’Reilly said that on his radio show, not on the tv factor. So when Dodd says that O’Reilly “said it right here,” it’s not entirely right, since O’Reilly said it on the radio. It’s clear too if you watch the segment that O’Reilly has this tv/radio distinction in mind.
anon 2 #29 - setting aside your personal courage in revealing who you are for the moment … the image of Bush and Liebermann which has O’Reilly’s panties in a wad has been (and still is ?) up on Daily Kos for how long ? Contrast that, in its context of the relentless negativity and crass bigotry of the Daily Kos against Republicans, with O’Reilly saying what *he* did - publicly, with no attempt to hide behind pseudonyms or equivalent anonymity - if he was Prez, and a community refused to cooperate in the mutual defence, then that community forfeits the mutual defence, and an attacker can just attack ‘em ! … in NO way did O’Reilly simply out and order al-Qaeda to attack SF (even if al-Qaeda would listen to him, anyway) …
Those of us who have read what is on the Daily Kos are already familiar with what is written there by the average commenter and it makes *your* support for Dodd and Dodd’s statement both completely ridiculous - “Dodd simply said its ridiculous for Bill-O to complain about offensive comments from a few random people” …
The problem, Alasdair, is that you would find ANY negativity towards republicans in the same vein as the stuff at Daily Kos. On top of that even if the accusations hold any merit, O’Reilly is one of the last people who has any right to make the criticisms he does given HIS relentless negativity and crass bigotry toward Democrats.
More over, as Brendan has pointed out, holding that site responsible for that one incident because they didn’t take it down is the same as holding Brendan responsible for all the things anyone has said on this site that he didn’t delete.
The fact that you (and O’Reilly) are so bent out of shape by a random photoshopped picture on a website (which yes is tasteless and disgusting and disrespectful) and not over things that really matter is not at all surprising. It seems to be the far rights modus operandi.
Standing O for Alasdair letting the entire world know exactly who he/she is, wow you are so courageous. I didn’t know coming up with a catchy on-line screen name made you such a beacon of bravery. Pardon my lack of creativity.
What does it matter how long the image has been up on the site?? Who cares? It is political satire that in no way threatens harm to anyone or makes any patently un-American statement. Contrast that to Bill-O’s personal comments and the comments left up on his PREMIUM website by posters with over 1,000 posts. Specific threats of violence and clear racial bigotry. And yes Bill-O specifically said that San Francisco should be an open target for al-Qaeda. I can’t believe I have to post this again, but here it is: “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.” Can you imagine if a liberal/Democrat said this about some conservative place??? I mean he would be absolutely strung up by his genitals, yet Bill-O’s comments were barely even reported. If there was no on-line community no one would probably even know about them.
Finally, I have read your last paragraph probably a dozen times and have yet to decipher its meaning. Once again, you claimed that Dodd brought up the issue of offensiveness, which I pointed out was absolutely false and that O’Reilly continually uses offensive language on his radio and TV show, yet says offensive posts on Daily Kos should disqualify any politician from attending the convention. At no point in your rambling did you even come close to an intelligent thought. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.
in NO way did O’Reilly simply out and order al-Qaeda to attack SF
And in NO way did Dodd claim that O’Reilly did this. So I fail to see how it’s relevant.
I can’t believe I’m wasting time with this, but:
DODD: “Talking about Al Qaeda attacking San Francisco. That’s not offensive?”
O’REILLY: “When did I say that? When did I say that?”
DODD: “You said it in 2005, I believe.”
O’REILLY: “When, where, what forum? When?”
DODD: “Right here, I believe, on your own show.”
O’REILLY: “Wrong. You’re wrong. I didn’t say it here. You don’t know what the hell I said!”
So, Condor is right, O’Reilly is using a hilariously Clintonian tactic to prevent himself from out-and-out lying (he never explicitly denies saying it anywhere, ever) while clearly and dishonestly leaving viewers with the impression that he never said it (e.g., his incredulous tone when he angrily asks “When did I say that?”, his statement that “You don’t know what the hell I said!” — even though Dodd’s characterization was a perfectly accurate rendition of what O’Reilly said).
Regardless, Alasdair’s comments are completely off-base and irrelevant. Dodd said O’Reilly engaged in “talking about Al Qaeda attacking San Francisco.” O’Reilly did indeed do that. So, um, Alasdair, what on earth is your point?
Brendan #40 - by your own line of logic (OK, so I’m using the term loosely) - Dodd talked about al-Qaea attacking San Francisco … after all, Dodd used those very words, did he not … in your *own* quote, no less …
The problem with the assertion I just made is that it ignores context …
Dodd is asserting as an example of O’Reilly making offensive utterances that O’Reilly talked about al-Qaeda attack San Francisco … O’Reilly countered that he had not talked offensively about it … and, for those who go back and read the *entire* transcript, they can see that O’Reilly is careful to prepare the context leading up to uttering the same words Dodd used …
Now, whether or not you respect one or either of the two men, either they *both* used the words offensively, or neither did (in which case it’s sorta hard to characterise Dodd as having successfully cleaned O’Reilly’s clock) …
Perhaps you can show up the irrelevance by showing what was offensive about what O’Reilly said in context …
Dodd has about a snowball’s chance in hell of ever winning the presidential nomination. Lieberman’s odds are better(who Dodd threw under the bus, some friend, eh).
August 3rd, 2007 at 2:44:46 pm
*applause*
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:10:23 pm
i like dodd, i wish he was polling better.
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:17:34 pm
How O’Reilly can get away with blatant lying is really unbelievable?? He does this all the time too. He constantly denies saying things that are saved on video and audio forever!!! Only in a world with Fox News can a man like this continue to have such a high-profile job.
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:29:23 pm
O’Reilly did in fact say what Dodd claimed he said.
And Daily Kos does in fact contain the hateful garbage O’Reilly claims it does.
I can’t stand Dodd, and am neither surprised nor displeased that he’s polling in the toilet.
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:38:55 pm
The degree/extent of hateful language on Daily Kos is a matter open to interpretation. I probably agree more with you than with Dodd about it, but still, it’s something reasonable people can disagree over: what constitutes “hateful garbage” as opposed to mere vocal dissent/satire? To what extent should Kos, the site, be blamed for the hateful garbage of Kos commenters and diarists? Is the site truly dominated by hateful garbage, or is that just something that happens around the edges? etc. etc.
On the other hand, that O’Reilly said what Dodd claimed he said is NOT open to interpretation, nor is it something reasonable people can disagree over. He said it, and then he lied and claimed he hadn’t said it. Period.
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:39:37 pm
Dodd tried to completely ignore the substance of the Daily Kos (e.g., the pic of Lieberman blowing Bush) and change the subject to O’Reilly going after the Daily Kos strictly because of ideology. But earlier this week O’Reilly was just as vigorous in going after the proprietor of a right wing hate site containing vitriolic posts aimed at, e.g., Hillary Clinton. O’Reilly may be full of crap about not saying whatever stupid thing he said in the past, but no less than Dodd, who could just as easily be lampooned as going down on Markos Moulitsas.
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:42:28 pm
Bill O’s website currently contains numerous posts referring to HC as a Nazi and various other such speech, so I expect Joe Mama to begin vigorously advocating against Bill O’Reilly’s website.
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:45:02 pm
Dodd wasn’t “ignoring” anything; his whole point was that there was no real substance to O’Reilly’s beef, that the whole thing was a giant irrelevant distraction, and that therefore he wasn’t going to dignify it with a full response because that feeds the beast. He did, however, say that of course he’s not OK with that particular photoshop… and he explained fairly clearly why he doesn’t feel the need to distance himself from the whole site because of that one photoshop. What more do you want? You might disagree with his answer, but he did answer (despite O’Reilly’s obnoxious attempts to not let him get in a word in edgewise).
Besides, honestly - c’mon - the particular thing O’Reilly pointed to wasn’t like the infamous blackface Lieberman - it was just a crude gay-blowjob joke thingy. Who cares? And I say that as a Lieberman fan who doesn’t like Kos and supports gay rights! But really. It’s no more or less offensive, in my eyes, than the actual ideological rhetoric about Lieberman that comes routinely from the Left, which was really Dodd’s point: O’Reilly’s primary gripe is with the ideological message, not the medium.
As for O’Reilly going after a right-wing hate site, bully for him, though I’d have to know more details to know whether the two things are comparable. Regardless, I think Dodd certainly got the better of this particular exchange.
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:49:08 pm
O’Reilly is the bearded woman of the fox news channel. Everyone tunes in to see how a human being can actually hold such ridiculous opinions. That said, I frequent the circus just about every week.
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:50:27 pm
Speaking of which, BEWARE THE EVIL LESBIAN GANGS!!!
:)
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:58:55 pm
And here come the Trojans:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2007-08-02-usc-poll-cover_N.htm
August 3rd, 2007 at 4:04:52 pm
Bill O’s website currently contains numerous posts referring to HC as a Nazi and various other such speech, so I expect Joe Mama to begin vigorously advocating against Bill O’Reilly’s website.
I don’t read Bill O’Reilly’s website. Can you link to an example?
Dodd wasn’t “ignoring” anything; his whole point was that there was no real substance to O’Reilly’s beef, that the whole thing was a giant irrelevant distraction, and that therefore he wasn’t going to dignify it with a full response because that feeds the beast. He did, however, say that of course he’s not OK with that particular photoshop… and he explained fairly clearly why he doesn’t feel the need to distance himself from the whole site because of that one photoshop. What more do you want? You might disagree with his answer, but he did answer (despite O’Reilly’s obnoxious attempts to not let him get in a word in edgewise).
We’ll have to agree to disagree. Dodd did say the obligatory “of course he’s not OK with that” (the equivalent of clearing his throat), but only after creating his own “giant irrelevant distraction” by impugning the motives of O’Reilly in going after Daily Kos (and doing so in no less an obnoxious fashion than O’Reilly re talking over someone). As I pointed out, O’Reilly has gone after right-wing hate sites as well, albeit less frequently since none on the right seem to be as popular as the Daily Kos is on the left. What you say is “bully for him” is also direct proof that Dodd is wrong in impugning O’Reilly’s motive as being solely based on ideology. If I can find a clip of that particular show, I’ll link to it.
August 3rd, 2007 at 4:12:50 pm
If I remember correctly, the guy O’Reilly took to task on his show this week for having right-wing hate speech on his site was from www.freerepublic.com
August 3rd, 2007 at 4:23:07 pm
So would you be ok with O’Reilly criticizing this site if Brendan hosted a forum for the Democratic candidates and one of AA’s more vitriolic posts about Bush was pointed out as an example of the site as a whole? If Daily Kos was a site dedicated to posting photoshopped pictures of republicans in poor taste then he might have a point, but i agree that his criticism is not only weak but incredibly hipocritical
August 3rd, 2007 at 4:28:15 pm
I don’t visit his forums either (why would I put $5 a month in that sexual harassing liar’s pocket), but here are some postings by a person that has over 1,000 posts on his site.
http://bp3.blogger.com/_1xQeOPE9ePU/RqdvAXUp-bI/AAAAAAAAAhI/mDnmCSPuAoM/s1600-h/hillary2.jpg
I tried to post the snapshot of the page, but I couldn’t get it to work. Basically, a long-time “premium” O’Reilly subscriber says he will get a shotgun ready if HC is elected president.
Here’s another shining beacon of wisdom from O’Reilly’s forum:
“Is the US ready for a black President? The question should be, during a time of war with terrorism, Is America ready for a MUSLIM president? Barak Hussein OBAMA.. it is the pride of Muslims to name their children OSAMA.. and the closest thing to OSAMA is OBAMA… Please…. They will have pulled of the biggest HUDNA of all… a MUSLIM president right under our noses.. in front of our eyes.. while he denies he’s a Muslim, he belongs to a very unconventional “christian” church. A closer study of the man, his backers and his history should PREVENT him from ever holding HIGHER offices… lvs”
There are dozens of more examples and I believe Jane Hall brought up a few of them during an appearance on Bill-O’s show. Of course, he accused her of lying and said there were no such things. Just like Bill claimed he never said al-Qaeda should be free to blow up Coit Tower. Or his claims that he has never told a guest to “shut-up”. I believe there is a youtube video that shows him telling guests to shut up almost 100 times. JoeMama, how can you possibly defend a man that constantly lies all the time??? These aren’t small I forgot what I said lies either, they are constant lies about things he said that can be proven by video and audio. And for the record, I do not attribute the posts on the website to O’Reilly to Bill-O b/c that would be ridiculous and is exactly what Bill-O is doing in regard to Daily Kos. I look forward to his report advocating the take down of the vicious hate-site billoreilly.com.
August 3rd, 2007 at 4:31:30 pm
http://bp0.blogger.com/_1xQeOPE9ePU/RqisyXUp-dI/AAAAAAAAAhY/Hyz_jinrtB0/s1600-h/burndowncapitol.jpg
Sorry about my lack of knowledge regarding how to post a website address, but the site provided is another link to a screenshot of one of O’Reilly’s forum pages.
August 3rd, 2007 at 5:12:33 pm
“JoeMama, how can you possibly defend a man that constantly lies all the time???”
Are you asking how he can defend Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, The Republicans, or just O’Reilly? His defense on all those is that the Clinton’s said the same thing. As if there were any difference between the Clintons and all the other corrupt scumbag republicans.
August 3rd, 2007 at 5:15:45 pm
I was referring to O’Reilly. I realize there are differences of opinion among political leaders, but how in the world can anyone watch, let alone defend, this guy?? And he has the highest rated show on cable news?? Sometimes it is scary how ill-informed the American public is today.
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:04:10 pm
Brendan - did you read the transcript of what O’Reilly actually said about al-Qaeda and SF ? Can you tell me what was objectionable about what he said ?
You, yourself, just uttered “…wasn’t like the infamous blackface Lieberman - it was just a crude gay-blowjob joke thingy. Who cares? “ … {my emphasis} …
“just” ? For a lotta folk, they are “just” as offended by a “a crude gay-blowjob joke thingy” as others are by “the infamous blackface Lieberman “ …
I have two direct comments on this thing …
1) The *FACT* that Koxs leaves the ‘offending’ picture up on the site for a prolonged period (a year?) implies implicit approval or condoning … which is the point O’Reilly was making …
2) O’Reilly ended up by saying at the end of the clip (my paraphrasing) “Go take a look at the Kos site for yourself and make up your own mind” … *that* is an attitude worthy of respect, is it not ?
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:04:43 pm
(sigh) “Koxs” ???
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:18:02 pm
He said that al Qaeda should be able to blow up a famous landmark in a US city. I find that to be pretty objectionable.
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:20:56 pm
Wait, wait, wait, wait. Hold the phone.
The *FACT* that Koxs leaves the ‘offending’ picture up on the site for a prolonged period (a year?) implies implicit approval or condoning … which is the point O’Reilly was making …
NO IT DOES NOT.
Or do you think that, whenever I leave “offending” comments up on my blog (you know I almost never delete anything), that means I therefore implicitly approve of them? So, I implicitly approve of every comment by you, and David K., and Joe Mama, and dcl, and Sandy Underpants, and Andrew, and Coach Leahy, and Champion Sound, and everyone else who may ever have said anything here on the blog that might have offended anybody?? That’s an awful lot of contradictory crap for me to implicitly approve of!!
Blogmasters should never be presumed to “approve” of something just because it appears in comments (or in Kos’s case, diaries) on their site. To presume that is to force people to suppress free and open discourse in order to preserve their own reputations. Bullshit, utter bullshit.
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:20:59 pm
O’reilly preaches to the believers of a movement that is already over. I look forward to his impending fast-track of irrelevance.
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:31:33 pm
Don’t forget me, Brenners
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:36:03 pm
LOL. Sorry Wobbly.
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:47:11 pm
Oh, two other things Alasdair:
1) Whether what O’Reilly said about SF was objectionable isn’t the point. The point is that Dodd said he said it, and he denied saying it. If O’Reilly wanted to say, “I said that, but it wasn’t objectionable,” or “I said that, but it was taken out of context,” that would be different. But he denied saying it. Therefore, simply proving that he said it proves he’s a liar; context, meaning, and offensiveness are irrelevant.
2) People are offended by different things, obviously, but I think the “gay-blowjob joke thingy” is clearly less offensive than blackface, if for no other reason than that the point of the joke really doesn’t have anything to do with saying that Lieberman (or Bush) is gay — the point is that Lieberman is shown giving Bush a blowjob, which is seen as a sign of subservience and eagerness to please. The “gay” thing is just a “kicker” — it’s the blowjob that’s the joke. If Lieberman were a woman, the joke would work just as well, or almost as well. Of course, then it would be considered sexist rather than homophobic. Really, I’d say it’s neither — it’s just a dumb, unfunny blowjob joke. It certainly doesn’t rise to the level of offensiveness of blatant racism like the blackface thing (or Ann Coulter calling John Edwards a “fag”).
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:59:45 pm
Brendan #21 - Kos (the site) has a pattern, a history, a track-record of deleting coments of which it doesn’t approve … by leaving a comment/picture in place for a prolonge period while having such a track-record , the site is implicitly giving the comment/picture its approval - otherwise, it would have deleted it …
Your track record is to bend over backwards not to delete comments (which attitude *I* personally respect) - and you state very publicly *why* you have deleted something when you do make an exception … you publicly leave in place comments with which you are not in agreement, and, when they are sufficiently tasteless, you put yourself on record as having that opinion … that makes *your* site different from the Kos site …
(grin) When you have chosen “to suppress free and open discourse”, it has been for explicit expressed reasons …
Let us face it - whether you like it or not when I utter the words, you run your blog in an honourable and up-front manner … get used to it, Loy the Younger !
August 3rd, 2007 at 9:17:33 pm
Although I do not particularly support Dodd politically, I think that he handled himself well in this “interview”, refusing to allow Bill O’Reilly to trap him. I am also continually astonished that O’Reilly, who actually seemed quite intelligent and dignified when he was a news anchor years ago in Boston, is little more than the verbal equivalent of a playground bully.
August 3rd, 2007 at 9:18:00 pm
Brendan #25 - the two other things …
1) About 1:35 into the clip, Dodd says to O’Reilly “There are a lot of things that you say are vile on a daily basis” followed at 2:20 by “There are thousands on your posting as well everyday” … O’Reilly replies there aren’t any … Dodd responds at 02:25 “… talking about alQaeda attacking San Francisco … that’s not offensive ?”
So Dodd is explicitly saying that what O’Reilly said was offensive - *your* witness opened *that* line of questioning himself … Dodd himself made the offensiveness (or not) a relevant factor …
The transcript of what O’reilly said back then clearly shows that he (my paraphrasing)
said roughly, “If I’n the President, I say to SF “If you prevent military recruiting here in SF, and if al Qaeda blows you up, don’t come running to us feds for help !”" - which I believe to be an honest (and, actually, reasonable) statement from O’Reilly …
(I gotta go before my car gets towed !)
August 3rd, 2007 at 9:33:47 pm
Wrong Alasdair, he said if SF wants to prevent military recruiting, we should let them go and tell al-Qaeda that SF is an open target. He specifically said, “You want to blow up Coit Tower? Go ahead.”
“Dodd himself made the offensiveness (or not) a relevant factor …” Bullshit. O’Reilly made the offensiveness the issue from the get-go of his personal jihad against Daily Kos, the convention, and anyone associated with it. Dodd simply said its ridiculous for Bill-O to complain about offensive comments from a few random people on a site that gets over 500,000 hits a day when he continually makes offensive statements every day on his vast media empire.
Alasdair’s argument basically breaks down like this: Photoshopped image of Lieberman going down on Bush –> so offensive that any elected official should avoid any contact with the total Daily Kos site and anything connected with it. Inviting al-Q attacks on a major US city –> totally reasonable and appropriate political speech from the fine folks at fair and balanced Fox News.
August 3rd, 2007 at 11:05:50 pm
I thought O’Reilly’s comment was a simple “you don’t like the hand that protects you, fine, we won’t protect you” comment, not encouraging or hoping it happens. But it’s been a long time.
August 3rd, 2007 at 11:12:49 pm
I rather vote O’Reilly for president over Chris “the Dud” Dodd anyday. Dodd is really a player, in more ones than one and that’s all I have to say about the senator.
August 3rd, 2007 at 11:42:45 pm
In other news, dog bites man… No seriously, is any of this in anyway surprising, new, different, or unusual? I’m unclear as to why we are having this conversation.
August 4th, 2007 at 2:21:00 am
“I rather vote O’Reilly for president over Chris “the Dud” Dodd anyday. Dodd is really a player, in more ones than one and that’s all I have to say about the senator.”
Genius commentary. I don’t know anything about Chris Dodd’s personal life, so I won’t comment about that. And if he is a philanderer there is no excuse and it is reprehensible. But to say you’d rather have Bill “falafel” O’Reilly b/c your problem with Dodd involves his personal life is ridiculous. I suggest you go to thesmokinggun.com and search Bill O’Reilly. After you get done reading the complaint (which Bill settled as soon as he possibly could) then we can talk about what a great man he is, deserving of all our respect.
August 4th, 2007 at 8:32:00 am
didn’t they settle that case in the earliest stages for like 50,000. If you settle a case againt a major celebrity for 50,000, you did not have a case.
August 4th, 2007 at 10:08:07 am
Try millions and millions 4-7. A week after the settlement she paid cash for a place that cost over a $1 million. As if the fact that Bill-O went on TV and vowed to fight with everything he had and then settled no more than a week later shouldn’t clue you in to how guilty he was. Why do all of you people spend so much time and energy defending this dolt? Does he really mean that much to the conservative cause? That is the second time in this thread that you’ve tried to defend the indefensible. And in both cases you were wrong.
August 4th, 2007 at 2:31:25 pm
“Oh, and O’Reilly did in fact say what Dodd claimed he said.”
Technically O’Reilly’s not lying on this particular point, but it’s definitely a mental reservation. O’Reilly said that on his radio show, not on the tv factor. So when Dodd says that O’Reilly “said it right here,” it’s not entirely right, since O’Reilly said it on the radio. It’s clear too if you watch the segment that O’Reilly has this tv/radio distinction in mind.
August 4th, 2007 at 9:52:05 pm
anon 2 #29 - setting aside your personal courage in revealing who you are for the moment … the image of Bush and Liebermann which has O’Reilly’s panties in a wad has been (and still is ?) up on Daily Kos for how long ? Contrast that, in its context of the relentless negativity and crass bigotry of the Daily Kos against Republicans, with O’Reilly saying what *he* did - publicly, with no attempt to hide behind pseudonyms or equivalent anonymity - if he was Prez, and a community refused to cooperate in the mutual defence, then that community forfeits the mutual defence, and an attacker can just attack ‘em ! … in NO way did O’Reilly simply out and order al-Qaeda to attack SF (even if al-Qaeda would listen to him, anyway) …
Those of us who have read what is on the Daily Kos are already familiar with what is written there by the average commenter and it makes *your* support for Dodd and Dodd’s statement both completely ridiculous - “Dodd simply said its ridiculous for Bill-O to complain about offensive comments from a few random people” …
August 4th, 2007 at 10:05:12 pm
The problem, Alasdair, is that you would find ANY negativity towards republicans in the same vein as the stuff at Daily Kos. On top of that even if the accusations hold any merit, O’Reilly is one of the last people who has any right to make the criticisms he does given HIS relentless negativity and crass bigotry toward Democrats.
More over, as Brendan has pointed out, holding that site responsible for that one incident because they didn’t take it down is the same as holding Brendan responsible for all the things anyone has said on this site that he didn’t delete.
The fact that you (and O’Reilly) are so bent out of shape by a random photoshopped picture on a website (which yes is tasteless and disgusting and disrespectful) and not over things that really matter is not at all surprising. It seems to be the far rights modus operandi.
August 4th, 2007 at 10:13:28 pm
Standing O for Alasdair letting the entire world know exactly who he/she is, wow you are so courageous. I didn’t know coming up with a catchy on-line screen name made you such a beacon of bravery. Pardon my lack of creativity.
What does it matter how long the image has been up on the site?? Who cares? It is political satire that in no way threatens harm to anyone or makes any patently un-American statement. Contrast that to Bill-O’s personal comments and the comments left up on his PREMIUM website by posters with over 1,000 posts. Specific threats of violence and clear racial bigotry. And yes Bill-O specifically said that San Francisco should be an open target for al-Qaeda. I can’t believe I have to post this again, but here it is: “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.” Can you imagine if a liberal/Democrat said this about some conservative place??? I mean he would be absolutely strung up by his genitals, yet Bill-O’s comments were barely even reported. If there was no on-line community no one would probably even know about them.
Finally, I have read your last paragraph probably a dozen times and have yet to decipher its meaning. Once again, you claimed that Dodd brought up the issue of offensiveness, which I pointed out was absolutely false and that O’Reilly continually uses offensive language on his radio and TV show, yet says offensive posts on Daily Kos should disqualify any politician from attending the convention. At no point in your rambling did you even come close to an intelligent thought. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.
August 4th, 2007 at 10:29:49 pm
in NO way did O’Reilly simply out and order al-Qaeda to attack SF
And in NO way did Dodd claim that O’Reilly did this. So I fail to see how it’s relevant.
I can’t believe I’m wasting time with this, but:
DODD: “Talking about Al Qaeda attacking San Francisco. That’s not offensive?”
O’REILLY: “When did I say that? When did I say that?”
DODD: “You said it in 2005, I believe.”
O’REILLY: “When, where, what forum? When?”
DODD: “Right here, I believe, on your own show.”
O’REILLY: “Wrong. You’re wrong. I didn’t say it here. You don’t know what the hell I said!”
So, Condor is right, O’Reilly is using a hilariously Clintonian tactic to prevent himself from out-and-out lying (he never explicitly denies saying it anywhere, ever) while clearly and dishonestly leaving viewers with the impression that he never said it (e.g., his incredulous tone when he angrily asks “When did I say that?”, his statement that “You don’t know what the hell I said!” — even though Dodd’s characterization was a perfectly accurate rendition of what O’Reilly said).
Regardless, Alasdair’s comments are completely off-base and irrelevant. Dodd said O’Reilly engaged in “talking about Al Qaeda attacking San Francisco.” O’Reilly did indeed do that. So, um, Alasdair, what on earth is your point?
August 5th, 2007 at 1:58:56 am
anon 2 - are you ‘fessing up to being a subscriber to O’Reilly’s PREMIUM website ? WOW ! Even *I* am not that dedicated a right-winger !
(grin)
August 5th, 2007 at 2:09:33 am
Brendan #40 - by your own line of logic (OK, so I’m using the term loosely) - Dodd talked about al-Qaea attacking San Francisco … after all, Dodd used those very words, did he not … in your *own* quote, no less …
The problem with the assertion I just made is that it ignores context …
Dodd is asserting as an example of O’Reilly making offensive utterances that O’Reilly talked about al-Qaeda attack San Francisco … O’Reilly countered that he had not talked offensively about it … and, for those who go back and read the *entire* transcript, they can see that O’Reilly is careful to prepare the context leading up to uttering the same words Dodd used …
Now, whether or not you respect one or either of the two men, either they *both* used the words offensively, or neither did (in which case it’s sorta hard to characterise Dodd as having successfully cleaned O’Reilly’s clock) …
Perhaps you can show up the irrelevance by showing what was offensive about what O’Reilly said in context …
Cuz context matters …
August 5th, 2007 at 11:26:53 am
Dodd has about a snowball’s chance in hell of ever winning the presidential nomination. Lieberman’s odds are better(who Dodd threw under the bus, some friend, eh).
August 5th, 2007 at 8:42:26 pm
Bill doesnt let you finish a comment if he doesnt agree with it. Geez. What a bully
August 6th, 2007 at 11:37:53 am
“Bill doesnt let you finish a comment if he doesnt agree with it. Geez. What a bully”
And I suppose Olbermann(who never has an opposing p.o.v. on his show) is better? Look at the ratings and tell me who people prefer to watch.
August 6th, 2007 at 11:55:13 am
Indeed. Olbermann and O’Reilly are peas in a pod. They deserve each other.