Monday, July 09, 2007

Bill O'Reilly is an idiot

You knew that, I know. But rarely are we treated to such a perfect example of it.

From Reason Magazine:

Apparently, America is under attack from roving bands of terroristic lesbian gangs. Broadly extrapolating from a few unrelated news stories, O'Reilly concluded that these butch brigades are scouring America's schools in search of young girls to rape, while launching brutal surprise attacks on unsuspecting heterosexual men. O'Reilly and Fox News "crime analyst" Rod Wheeler claimed these killer chicks pack pink pistols, and that there are over 150 lesbian gangs in the D.C. area alone!

Trouble is, none of it is true, as the Southern Poverty Law Center discovered. And Rod Wheeler, when challenged, provides no evidence to back up his claims and then essentially retracts the whole thing while pretending not to.

Even better: All the video shown on the segment, which is supposed to make you think you're watching lesbians beating down innocent bystanders? Just stock footage of girls fighting. One of the scenes, it turns out, is actually of girls fighting over a boy.

Morons. I don't usually waste blog space on drooling knuckledraggers like O'Reilly, but this one was too good to pass up.

To all O'Reilly fans out there: Please, please, please post comments defending the man.

, , ,

Labels: , , ,

15 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know nothing about the story or whether it's true. Nor do I really care. But at least O'Reilly had something that he based his story on. That's very different from comments made by Democrats---and not just commentators, but elected officials---each and every day. Like the latest charge from Democrat Congressman Conyers who is charging that Bush commuted Libby's sentence in an effort to keep him quite. No Democrats are out there blasting him or demanding to know what orifice he pulled that one out of.

JP5

7/09/2007 4:06 PM  
Blogger Sean Aqui said...

But at least O'Reilly had something that he based his story on.

No he didn't. Visit the link; you can watch the video segment there. All it's based on is the unsubstantiated imaginings of Rod Wheeler.

Like the latest charge from Democrat Congressman Conyers who is charging that Bush commuted Libby's sentence in an effort to keep him quiet.

You're spinning. Not only does it make no sense to compare a member of the media to a politician; Conyers hasn't actually asserted that as fact.

He has said the commutation raises the suspicion that it was done to keep Libby quiet, and he has sent a letter to the White House asking that Bush explain why he commuted the sentence.

He has scheduled hearings on Wednesday to "explore the grave questions that arise when the Presidential clemency power is used to erase criminal penalties for high-ranking executive branch employees whose offenses relate to their work for the President."

That, IMO, is a reasonable concern. As noted in an earlier post, James Madison thought such a move was grounds for impeachment.

7/09/2007 4:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh baloney. Conyers knows exactly what he's doing. He thinks if he says it enough---people will start to believe it. He's pulling that "suspicion" out his behind and playing politics. And he can send all the partisan letters he wants: the President has ALREADY told the public what his reasoning was on the commuted sentence. Guess it's NOT what Conyers prefers to hear, eh? Well, that's his personal problem.

And yes, yet another partisan hearing should be fun. Bush can't wipe his nose lately that Conyers doesn't call for a hearing on it. It's quite ridiculous. I can't wait until the Republicans bring up all the Clinton pardons of real criminals, drug dealers, and criminals who donated heavily to his campaigns. Bring it on!! I'd like for the public to see a little side-by-side comparison.

JP5

7/09/2007 4:35 PM  
Blogger Sean Aqui said...

Oh baloney. Conyers knows exactly what he's doing. He thinks if he says it enough---people will start to believe it.

Quite possibly; after all, that tactic has worked pretty well for the Bush administration. All I ask is that you criticize him for what he actually says, not make up words to put in his mouth.

The President has ALREADY told the public what his reasoning was on the commuted sentence.

Conyers is seeking specific answers (and related documentation) to specific questions, including: Was Cheney involved in the deliberations? How did Bush determine the sentence was "excessive"? Did he consider the effect on Libby's future testimony in the Plame case? Had Libby been given assurances of clemency? Who lobbied for clemency?

To which I would add: Why did he commute the entire jail term, and not just part of it?

I can't wait until the Republicans bring up all the Clinton pardons of real criminals, drug dealers, and criminals who donated heavily to his campaigns.

Would they consider that a useful defense? I wouldn't.

Especially because there was a Congressional probe into Clinton's pardons, for which Clinton waived executive privilege.

7/09/2007 4:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I did criticize Conyers for what he said. To even bring up his "suspicion" publically tells us what he's trying to do.

"Conyers is seeking specific answers (and related documentation) to specific questions, including: Was Cheney involved in the deliberations? How did Bush determine the sentence was "excessive"? Did he consider the effect on Libby's future testimony in the Plame case? Had Libby been given assurances of clemency? Who lobbied for clemency?"

ALL of which are none of Conyers' business. These kinds of things were NOT asked of Bill Clinton's administrations.

"To which I would add: Why did he commute the entire jail term, and not just part of it?"

Because it was ridiculous to sentence a man to ANY jailtime for simply having a different memory than Tim Russert had....and when there was no original crime at that.

"Would they consider that a useful defense? I wouldn't."

You wouldn't??? You do it all the time. Just today you started a thread on some defense of Bill Clinton because you believe..."Bush did it too...."

As far as Clinton's "waiving executive privilege" back then and Marc Rich REFUSING to testify at the same time....I'll pretend I'm Conyers.

As Conyers I would state...."It raises the SUSPICION that Clinton and Rich perhaps had a deal worked out." Yeah, that's it. It must be it.

JP5

7/09/2007 7:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sean
Ths is not about Bill O'Reilly .
The first big hypocrite from the DC madam scandal is out.
BBC is reporting this. Check it out.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6287488.stm
GK

7/10/2007 7:07 AM  
Blogger Sean Aqui said...

I did criticize Conyers for what he said.

No, you misrepresented what he said. You said he claimed there was a quid pro quo. He didn't.

ALL of which are none of Conyers' business. These kinds of things were NOT asked of Bill Clinton's administrations.

Um, the hearings held by Dan Burton asked exactly those kinds of questions -- was there an improper quid pro quo to get Rich pardoned? Who lobbied for the pardon? And so on.

Just today you started a thread on some defense of Bill Clinton because you believe..."Bush did it too...."

Go back and re-read it, including the comments thread. I did not excuse Clinton because Bush did it, too. Nor did I excuse Bush because Clinton did it.

As far as Clinton's "waiving executive privilege" back then and Marc Rich REFUSING to testify at the same time....I'll pretend I'm Conyers. As Conyers I would state...."It raises the SUSPICION that Clinton and Rich perhaps had a deal worked out." Yeah, that's it. It must be it.

Except that Clinton's waiving executive privilege had no effect on Rich one way or the other, Rich not being a member of the administration. Clinton's action allowed his aides to testify and relevant documents to be subpoenaed.

7/10/2007 11:06 PM  
Anonymous obscurifer said...

I copied and pasted the comments thread into a word processor. Interestingly, there are 1090 words (including comment headers/footers), and only three counts of the word, "O'Reilly." None of the counts actually talk about Bill O'Reilly.

Definitely 298 matches.

7/11/2007 7:09 AM  
Blogger Sean Aqui said...

Obscurifier: LOL! Yeah, we occasionally take the comments way off topic. But that's cool; whatever people want to talk about is fine with me.

7/11/2007 3:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Except that Clinton's waiving executive privilege had no effect on Rich one way or the other, Rich not being a member of the administration. Clinton's action allowed his aides to testify and relevant documents to be subpoenaed."

Do you mean "Clinton's actions" AFTER the federal judge made him?


"In 1998, President Clinton became the fist president since Nixon to invoke executive privilege and lose in the courts, when a federal judge ruled Clinton aides could be called to testify in the Monica Lewinsky scandal."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11527747

7/11/2007 5:08 PM  
Blogger Sean Aqui said...

Do you mean "Clinton's actions" AFTER the federal judge made him?

No. We're talking about the Marc Rich pardon, not Monica.

7/11/2007 5:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"No, you misrepresented what he said. You said he claimed there was a quid pro quo. He didn't."

He implied it. He raised the idea. He did that on purpose.

"Um, the hearings held by Dan Burton asked exactly those kinds of questions -- was there an improper quid pro quo to get Rich pardoned? Who lobbied for the pardon? And so on.:

And they said, "No." Right? And their answers were accepted as truthful by Democrats. End of story.

JP5

7/11/2007 9:21 PM  
Blogger Sean Aqui said...

He implied it. He raised the idea. He did that on purpose.

He didn't really imply it, either. What he did was put it out there by saying it "raises the suspicion." Sure, he wants that association in the public mind. But he stopped short of accusing Bush of it, as you claimed.

And they said, "No." Right? And their answers were accepted as truthful by Democrats. End of story.

First, I'd just like to note that you're changing the subject here. You claimed that Clinton's people were never asked these questions; they were.

Second, since Clinton waived privilege in the Rich case, why doesn't Bush waive privilege in this case?

Third, one assumes people don't lie under oath until confronted with evidence to the contrary. Hence the general deference paid to the testimony of administration officials, even today.

Fourth, Burton and Alan Specter held multiple hearings -- not to mention multiple press conferences -- on the Rich pardon. They subpoenaed administration officials and financial records. They did not simply accept Clinton's word that everything was legit.

In fact, a federal prosecutor, Mary Jo White, was appointed to investigate (an investigation that was later picked up by the ubiquitous James Comey). They found no grounds to indict.

The House even issued a long report on the subject at the conclusion of their investigation.

I had absolutely no problem with all that attention over the Rich pardon. It deserved looking into.

Libby is no Rich, but the circumstances of his commutation are so unusual and yes, suspicion-raising that they deserve looking into as well.

It frankly should be illegal for a president to pardon one of his cronies/henchmen/water carriers.

7/11/2007 10:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill O' Reilly is an idiot period!!!

8/09/2007 3:56 AM  
Blogger Sean Aqui said...

I'd say that O'Reilly would be at the low end of the bell curve regardless of which punctuation marks we were testing.... ;)

8/09/2007 8:27 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home