http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/29/hillary-clinton-to-appear-on-the-oreilly -factor/

Hillary wants to give credence to O'Reilly, so she has lost my vote.

So, Dan, are you going to vote for McCain after Barry Obama eventually also appears on The Factor?

Dan, your vote goes rather cheaply.

"Hillary wants to give credence to O'Reilly, so she has lost my vote."

That is poor logic and reasoning, Dan. Do you have personal issues with O'Reilly?

She is willing to be asked tough and challenging questions from Bill O'Reilly. What is wrong with that?

Do you prefer she be asked softball questions from Larry King?

O'Reilly is a jerk who should be ignored. Clinton is showing how desperate she is.

O'Reilly is an idiot, and he has a demonstrated agenda. He also controls the editing of his taped show - she doesn't. It's a bit of a gamble for her to go on his show but she must be feeling the need for risk these days.

(Not sure how Hillary doing something means Obama "earned" anything.)

Andrew

"O'Reilly is a jerk..." "O'Reilly is an idiot..."

Yeah, right. And, kicking everyone's ass in the ratings.

Yet he is still a jerk and an idiot.

Hillary is just showing how dumb she is, as O'Reilly will later use her comments out of context when he attacks her.

So you think higher ratings is the end-all? What about Oprah? She gets 3X the number of daily viewers that O'Reilly gets. I guess that means she's three times smarter than him huh?

Andrew

Is Keith Olberman a jerk and idiot too?

Sometimes. But less so.

I agree, Olbermann can be annoying and too self-important for his own good also. Then again, he doesn't pull the kind of "gotcha" crap O'Reilly pulls on his show.

Andrew

"...still a jerk and an idiot...."

Evidence, please.

Herb O'Reilly

"What say you?"

" "...still a jerk and an idiot...."

Evidence, please."

No.

O'Reilly is a jerk and a hypocrite, but I do like catching his show, if for nothing else, to see how the other side thinks. Knowing your enemy means knowing more than your enemy.

"O'Reilly is a jerk who should be ignored."

What has O'Reilly ever put on the air that was untrue?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWNEkE1VYz8

http://www.lies.com/wp/2003/10/23/bill-oreilly-lies/

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601040009

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/09/06/desperate_to_take_heat_off_bush_oreilly_lies _and_blames_the_poor.php

http://mediamatters.org/items/200502080004

http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/billspins.htm

http://www.newshounds.us/2007/08/14/oreilly_lies_about_gay_rights_endorsement_hu rting_candidates.php

I clicked on every link. Nothing there but left wing smear blogs. Sorry.

Tell me what you have seen yourself that he has said that is untrue.

You need to read, not just click on the link and notice the origin.

I saw this one:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601040009

"Summary: On CBS' Late Show with David Letterman, Bill O'Reilly resurrected his false claim that a Wisconsin elementary school banned the singing of the Christmas hymn "Silent Night," erroneously attributing the school's changed lyrics to political correctness. In fact, the new lyrics were merely part of a 1988 Christmas play called The Little Tree's Christmas Gift. Later in the interview, Letterman admonished O'Reilly, asserting, "I have the feeling about 60 percent of what you say is crap."

Then there's this one:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200502080004

"He waxed poetic about the inspiration that his own football career at Marist College in New York provided observing that he once punted a ball backwards. But that, quoting here, "I won the national punting title for my division as a senior." O'Reilly concludes that "I guess you could say the end zone was the beginning of the no-spin zone."

But Mr. O'Reilly has done a little spinning of his own here. Others might call it resume padding. The football office at Marist told me today that football was not a varsity sport there until 1978 -- seven years after O'Reilly graduated. "

I could go on and on, there is so much to work with, much of it more important than what I have quoted. But why bother because when confronted with verifiable information you simply dismiss it as leftist propaganda. Well here's one even better, Deane. I worked at KATU when Bill O'Reilly did. He is a liar. Not only does he lie on the air to support his facade of being a legitimate source of accurate information, but he lies off the air. He lies because he is on the inside a very self-centered egotistical asshole.

The right isn't real big on facts. They prefer confusion and denial.

Does anyone here remember O'Reilly's sex assault case he had to pay for?

"he is on the inside a very self-centered egotistical asshole."

Now that may be true.

It takes one to like one, right Deane?

I don't remember who he hit on at KATU since I was back in engineering most of the time and not privy to every bit of newsroom gossip, but I know I could find out if I needed to.

Yeah, Bill never apologized when he settled that one out of court.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7578-2004Oct28.html

Andy, I can assure you Bill O'Reilly can't hold a candle to the sexual harassment I accumulated in my disc jockey years and even beyond. Only then, it was called grab ass in the office.

I spent 8 years as a DJ and looking back I was never in need to harass anyone in the station. Spinning the non-hits brought with it a following of young ladies who not only had tastes beyond the top 40 junk of that decade and a higher level of intellect than that typical of pop culture fans but also had more experience at the sexual arts than I did. Thanks again, ladies.

If conservatives complain about Dan Rather and his bias, we're told to 'get over it.'

But when leftists complain about Bill O'Reilly, we're supposed to believe them?

I don't think so.

Herb

No Herbie, it's about who fabricates stories to make themselves look better than reality. O'Reilly has that track record. Dan Rather had no personal agenda, he was just trying to point out the fact that Bush was AWOL and since his daddy had the Navy burn his records, there can never be any more proof.

It's OK to compare, but in this case it's a bad example. Give us another one. You know, point out a liberal journalist who has the balls to spin so many lies as O'Reilly. I'll bet you can't.

Anybody remember when O'Reilly anchored at KATU?

And Steven Colbert owes his career to mocking "The Factor", which as pointed out earlier is the #1 cable news show ratings-wise.

"Dan Rather had no personal agenda"

And with that, shall we stand for the Star Spangled Banner.

"...still a jerk and an idiot...."

Evidence, please.

O'Rielly to Al Franken: "Shut up, shut up, shut up."

"Dan Rather had no personal agenda..."

Ha. Give us a hard one.

RATHER VERSUS HIS CBS COLLEAGUES

Dan Rather Denies Bias:
"Now respectfully, when you start talking about a liberal agenda and all the, quote, 'liberal bias' in the media, I quite frankly, and I say this respectfully but candidly to you, I don't know what you're talking about."
--Dan Rather to talk radio host Mike Rosen of KOA Denver, November 28, 1995.

"I walk out every day trying to have a big ‘I’ for independence stamped right in the middle of my forehead. I try to play no favorites, pull no punches."
--Dan Rather at a TV critics meeting in Los Angeles, July 1992.

CBS Colleagues Admit Bias:
"I think Dan is transparently liberal. Now he may not like to hear me say that. I always agree with him, too. But I think he should be more careful."
--CBS 60 Minutes Commentator Andy Rooney on Larry King Live, July 28, 2002

"Everybody knows that there's a liberal, that there's a heavy liberal persuasion among correspondents."
--Walter Cronkite, former CBS anchor, at the annual Radio and Television Correspondents Association dinner, March 21, 1996.

"I believe that most of us reporters are liberal...we are inclined to side with the powerless rather than the powerful. If that is what makes us liberals, so be it."
--Walter Cronkite in his syndicated column, August 6, 2003.

http://www.ratherbiased.com/compare.htm

I totally reject your examples of Dan Rather's professional agenda as being "personal."

This fingerpointing is reaching the "ridiculous" level! But, let me ask this (Herb): Isn't O'Reilly's program at best a form of "advocacy journalism?" After all, "Who's looking out for you," is the title of one of his books and a phrase that he likes to use on the air. How is this not an intentionally biased presentation? Also what of the "Dateline Washington" show, which you once claimed to be bias-free, even though their coverage tends to skew to Republicans, and they love to give airtime to spokespeople from industry groups and religious groups?

In a perfect world politicians would have to submit to an honest, lengthily periods of debates on issues. As it is, they're forced to go where the voters are to make their points. O'Reilly has an audience.

A good question is: should people who get their information, and form opinions based on television "news" shows be allowed the vote.

Another might be: why do we allow candidates to refuse to seriously debate the issues they raise with us, and that we are interested in, rather than go on David Letterman, O'Reilly, Larry King, Stephenopolis etc, etc. and become thereby, willingly or not, another performer.

Hillary is desperate and the Republicans are desperate too because they want her to be the Democratic nominee. O'Reilly will be gentle on her.

"Anybody remember when O'Reilly anchored at KATU?"

I rememeber when O'Reilly was the anchor at KATU, Jeff Gianola was the weatherman. He switched to the anchor spot when O'Reilly left.

Stonewall: Another might be: why do we allow candidates to refuse to seriously debate the issues they raise with us, and that we are interested in, rather than go on David Letterman, O'Reilly, Larry King, Stephenopolis etc, etc. and become thereby, willingly or not, another performer.

They don't refuse. The real problem is the mainstream media that is more interested in trivia and "juicy" personal issues than real political issues or actual qualifications for the presidency. Take the recent ABC "debate" between Clinton and Obama. Most of the debate was silly questions such as why Obama didn't wear a flag lapel pin. Truly, it was a disgusting performance by Gibson and Stephanopoulos. The parties should dump the mainstream media and hire their own moderators, honestly, or at least find an unbiased moderator like Jim Leher. These televised debates have mostly been awful - with the exception of the YouTube debates which were at least interesting.

Andrew

"Evidence, please.

Herb O'Reilly"

Two words: Andrea Mackris

It's so funny how the EXTREME RIGHT protects O'LIEly so much since he is an INDEPENDENT....

The biggest blow hard on cable television news is none other than Bill O’Reilly of FOX News. To call him a journalist would be incorrect, for he gave up those credentials long ago. But given FOX News’s lack of overall credibility, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that he’s given a platform in which to blather to the conservative faithful. My favorite O’Reilly regulars are the despicable Michelle Malkin, along with sister in arms Ann Coulter. They make a whimsical pair, full of hate so palpable you could cut it with a spork.

Andrew: I agree about the debates to this point.

What I wrote was that they (the candidates) are being allowed to avoid serious debate on issues. It could happen at any point. All it will take is for one of them has to decide it's necessary. If it's in a debate format, or just forced combat from a distance, the candidate who initiates it will do themselves, and us a lot of good. The other will have to respond, or resign themselves to likely defeat, as if it's done at all, it would have to be done in an aggressive fashion.

It will take some courage though to open that kind of conversation, and it will undoubtedly become personal to some degree. That's all right. Everyone has flaws. Some are important, others irrelevant. It is important that we decide though. And also, that we be given the good, the bad, and the ugly in their proposals. There is as much being left unsaid, as has been mentioned even at this late date. Promises are easy.

The greatest impediments to this happening will be the entrenched party power structures, and an electorate that doesn't honestly want the whole truth. What would happen if someone actually said I'd like to do that, but we can't afford it. Or, no, it's not worth it.

What would happen if someone actually said I'd like to do that, but we can't afford it. Or, no, it's not worth it.

McCain tried in 2000 and Rove/DUHbya and Co. threw hiim under the bus. Now they're okay with him? Make you wonder who the FLIP-FLOP party is.....

"Two words: Andrea Mackris"

How convenient. The left ignores women used by Mr. Clinton, who was later impeached...but then pile on Mr. O'Reilly, who never held public office.

What a joke.

Herb

The left ignores women used by Mr. Clinton, who was later impeached...

But that PUSSY Nixon turned tail and FLEW his way out of the White House and DAMAGED the United States FOREVER! And YOUR good with that???
What morals you have Herb...

Unlike Mr. Clinton, Mr. Nixon served his country honourably in The Big One.

Unlike Mr. Clinton, Mr. Nixon didn't lay a paw on the hired help.

Was Mr. Nixon imperfect?

Absolutely.

But rather than sell our military secrets to the commies, Mr. Nixon stood toe-to-toe with them, whether it was meeting with Brezhnev or Kruschev in the kitchen debates. And he had the guts to mine the harbours at Haiphong.

Game.
Set.
Match.

Mr. Nixon wins by a landslide...like he did in '72.

Nixon's STILL the one.

Herbert Milhous III

"Nixon's STILL the one."

And he's also twisting on a spit in Hell alongside Saddam Hussein.

Yep, he's still the one who resigned before being impeached.

If it weren't for Mr. Nixon and his ilk, you guys might be speaking Russian, Chinese, German, Italian or Japanese.

God Bless Richard M. Nixon.

Herb

If it weren't for Mr. Nixon and his ilk, you guys might be speaking Russian, Chinese, German, Italian or Japanese.

BULLSHIT!

He DAMAGED America FOREVER with his paranoia. He did some of the MOST DAMAGING things to America that will NEVER be repaired.
Well... At least he didn't sell chemical weapons to a madman so he could kill THOUSANDS of innocent women and children. Like Ronnie did.... So his place next to Satan wont be as close. Maybe next to Manson or Pol Pot.

No, we'd still be speaking English like we do right now, and without Nixon, the US would not have a president who had to resign in disgrace because he was a paraniod, bigoted, crook.

WOW!
Vit, that was very well said....
*PLONK*

CHECKMATE!

"He did some of the MOST DAMAGING things to America that will NEVER be repaired."

What did he do?

He fought communism and defeated Alger Hiss.

To socialists, those are unforgivable offenses.

Herb

OK, since we're going to pontificate on pointless comparisons between dead people and the living...

I have a video that contains a clip of Edward R. Murrow interviewing Louis Armstrong. These guys are sitting around, smoking cigarettes, laughing, and engaging in small talk about jazz slang. If he had had the chance, would Bill O'Reilly interview Louis Armstrong? No way! He'd probably say something like, "the only reason people like Louis Armstrong is because he smokes pot. Anybody could play a trumpet like that!"

Alfredo_t, the only way I can imagine anyone being able to come up with anything so preposterous is if they were doing what you say he would accuse Louis Armstrong of doing.

This hypothetical preposterous remark was based on some comments that Bill O'Reilly made on "The Radio Factor" the Thursday after Grammy night. He said that the reason that British singer-songwriter Amy Winehouse had won so many awards was because of her controversial personal life and the music industry's love of bad behavior. According to him, the content of her albums or songs had nothing to do with winning the awards. "Anybody could sing like that," he said of Winehouse's musical abilities. He later covered the same topic on his television show. So yes, I think that O'Reilly would have attacked Armstrong on the air if he thought it would get him ratings. The guy is an opportunist.

Why are his statements of fact an "attack" in your mind. He seems dead on to me.

"He fought communism and defeated Alger Hiss. "

He's still an anti-semitic scumbag. His failures surpass his accomplishments, most of which are overrated and amplified by the right wing Reaganites.

Nixon was the personification of failure. He was not an honorable man, his lies far outweigh his truths, and the bottom line for me is that he engaged in covert actioins against opponents, had a misdirected enemies list, deleted segments of crucial tapes, fired investigators, and brought crude behavior to the White House far beyond Bill Clinton's blowjob.

Nixon was a good President and a miserable human being.

He was a lousy President and a miserable human being.

Then there was Jimmy Carter who was a good human being and a lousy President. If we could every get it all in sync, we'd have something.

The leftists here talk about how anti-semitic Mr. Nixon was.

Nary a peep from those revisionists about Mr. Carter's problems with the Jewish people.

Classic duplicitous liberalism. Like Rosie O'Donnell wanting to ban guns...except she has an armed bodyguard. What a crock.

Herb

"What a crock."

Only in your own mind, Herbala. Nixon was an anti-semitic bastard and asshole. No other American president ever came close to being such a morally corrupt individual who held more than Jews in disdain unjustly. Your defense of him speaks volumes about how you truly feel about people. Nothing he did to the positive can possibly outweigh his crimes against people. He is, like George Bush, a blemish on the Presidency. But even the shrub has a more humanistic set of defects. Nixon hated the left and that's why you defend him. Poor choice. Find someone else that hates the left to idolize.

I don't believe that Jimmy's problem is one of anti-Semitism and you would be hard pressed to show that it is, considering his accomplishments in international detente outweigh his blunders.

Nixon's tapes tell it all. There is nothing you can do to erase (Nixon tried) the evil words of Richard Nixon. Find me an article this complete about Carter having such wicked thoughts about Jews. You can't. Nixon was a scourge. A louse. A pariah. He got what he deserved: The only president to resign in disgrace. May he rot in your hell.

"Since 1974, the publication of aides' memoirs and the release of more tapes have shown that Nixon made anti-Semitic references more often than Safire and others suspected. Sometimes, he simply grouped all Jews together in an unseemly way ("[Supporters of] the arts, you know—they're Jews, they're left wing—in other words, stay away"). Other times, he was more explicit (calling supporter Robert Vesco, who later fled the country to escape criminal charges, "a cheap kike"). Sometimes he chalked up nefarious behavior to Jews ("The IRS is full of Jews," he told Haldeman, when the IRS commenced an audit of the Rev. Billy Graham. "I think that's the reason they're after Graham, is the rich Jews").

At least once the anti-Semitism appears to have had hard consequences. As Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein first reported in The Final Days, and as White House memos later confirmed, Nixon feared that a "Jewish cabal" at the Bureau of Labor Statistics was skewing data to make him look bad, and he instructed his aide Fred Malek to tally up the Jewish employees at the bureau—a count that probably resulted in the demotion of two Jews. (It later forced Malek's own resignation from George Bush's 1988 presidential campaign.)

Still, Nixon's loyalists haven't shied from defending him. Garment has argued that Nixon's words on the tapes are just private mutterings, too fragmentary to allow the conclusion that he was anti-Semitic. Others have used the "some of his best aides were Jewish" rejoinder, pointing to Burns, Chotiner, Garment, Safire, Stein, and of course Henry Kissinger (about whom Nixon privately made anti-Semitic comments). Still others, including Nixon Library Director John Taylor in a 1999 letter to Slate, contend that when Nixon said "Jews," he really meant something like "anti-war liberals," at whom he was justifiably angry.

All these claims can be easily countered. To the dismissal of Nixon's remarks as just "private," one could argue that private comments are actually more revealing than public remarks of someone's true feelings, especially since overt anti-Semitism has become taboo. And this response, like Taylor's, begs a key question: If he's not anti-Semitic, why does Nixon vent his anger at anti-war liberals by focusing on their Jewishness? Making their ethnicity central to his complaint, when their ethnicity is nowhere at issue is, arguably, exactly what defines anti-Semitism. As for the prevalence of Jewish aides in Nixonland, again one has to understand how prejudice works. Anti-Semites, racists, and other bigots construct a definition of a group based on stereotypes and then direct their hatred toward the group. When they encounter an individual who seems to defy the stereotype—a friend, an aide, a Cabinet secretary—the negative view of the group as a whole isn't called into question; rather, the nonconforming friend gets defined as an "exception," allowing the hostile picture of the group as a whole to stand. On the tapes, Nixon and Haldeman are often heard discussing exactly these sort of "exceptions."

Perhaps most important, all these apologias for Nixon seem aimed at keeping him free of some permanent stigma, of being branded with a scarlet A. But this is ultimately just a semantic concern. There's no way to settle whether Nixon was an anti-Semite—not just because you can't peer into someone's soul, but also because there's no litmus test for anti-Semitism. No, Nixon didn't hate all Jews personally, nor did he use unreconstructed Henry Ford-style anti-Jewish appeals—though, of course, virtually no major public figure in the last 50 years has. Yet clearly he thought and spoke of Jews as a group, more or less united in their opposition to him, possessing certain base and malign characteristics, and worthy of his scorn and hatred. You don't have to call that anti-Semitism if you don't want to. But there's no denying it represents a worldview deserving of the strongest reproach."

http://hnn.us/articles/657.html

Then there was Jimmy Carter who was a good human being and a lousy President. If we could every get it all in sync, we'd have something.

At least the Democrats are trying... McSame is a carbon copy of DUHbya. Now if we could just find an Independent that America could get behind it's a slam dunk.

Your defense of him speaks volumes about how you truly feel about people.

OUCH!

*PLONK*

GAME
SET
MATCH
CHECK MATE
TKO

Thanks Andy! The truth may set ol' Herb free yet.

How about a good laugh -- Let's dim the lights, put on some music, cue the video and start the voiceover...

It's 3 a.m.

It's been a long night.

You are taking a break at a truckstop somewhere in our heartland.

You need the right person for a tough job.

You need someone who can make a split second decision.

Who can you trust to do the job right when you need it the most?

Who do you want to have their finger on the button?

You are not alone.

All of America is asking:

Can we afford to vote for someone who does not pass the coffeemaker in chief threshold?

It's 3:15 a.m.

Our beverage future is still at stake.

Paid for by Coffee Drinkers for a Better America

:0)

"Nixon hated the left and that's why you defend him."

Close. Try this, instead:

"Nixon often outmanoevered the left and that's why you defend him."

Unlike the left, I'm not about hate. But I do appreciate a good chess match.

Herb

Cheating is not allowed in chess, is it?

That's right Herrb, you're all about fear.

"Cheating is not allowed in chess, is it?"

Are you talking about when union thugs, the Daley machine and the Mob helped Mr. Kennedy steal the election from Mr. Nixon?

Herb

Not chess.

Checkers.