BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!

Subject: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: GUEST,fiddler
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 06:57 PM

How many of you out there are thrilled to see such a "JERK" exposed. I know "men will be men", but it is hard for me to feel sorry for him.

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Brían
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 09:17 PM

Well you could at least give us all a hint what this
is all about instead of making some vague reference. I don't care for him at all. but I'd like to hear more about it.

Brían

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: GUEST,peedeecee
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 09:17 PM

Sometimes men will be hypocrites. Apparently he had a porn star on his programme once, and denounced her for her filthy choice of work. She has just noted that after the show he asked her for free videos.

Heh.

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Peace
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 09:19 PM

Thanks for the link, Brian.

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 09:39 PM

Shut Up! This is a Democracy!

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Amergin
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 10:01 PM

LOL Robin!

Well I don't know why he feels he has a worthy reputation to protect. He is just a well known liar.

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 10:06 PM

Amerigin,

A lot of people said the same about Clinton....

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Peace
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 10:18 PM

That's true about Clinton and Nixon, beardedbruce. But this is about a guy who works for FOX. Ain't it great? YES.

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 10:20 PM

guess what mr. non-sequiterBB...this thread has nothing to do with bill clinton. too much to get your mind around?

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 10:57 PM

it is a pity that some of the guests here do not seem to be aware of the hypocrasy of stating that the actions of one person should not be held accountable to the law of the land, but similar actions of anbother require action. I had to listen to the Dems stating that Clinton's perjury in a grand jury, in order to avoid admitting the truth, was ok, because it was a personnal matter- in spite of the legal procedings that had caused his testimony, and the situation that, for anyone else wopuld have been sexual harrassment. So why do you think that Bill O'Reilly does not deserve the same lack of accountability? Because you do not like what he says?

THAT is bigotry.

THAT is hypocracy

That is putting a select class of priviledged individuals above the law. Is that what you are trying to do?

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 11:05 PM

BeardedBruce introduces Clinton as often as he can in numerous threads in order to smear the guy 'cause he hates the man. It's that simple. Doesn't matter if it is off topic, or if it's apples and oranges, he just hates Clinton.

Bill O'Reilly, isn't he the one who hosted one of those faux-news programs for years? It was like a live version of The National Enquirer. Around here those programs come on right after the "real" news, so we turn the tv off.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Peace
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 11:08 PM

No doubt that Clinton was a liar. No doubt either that Nixon was also. These people were talked about on the news. FOX CREATES THE NEWS, and now one of its own is in the limelight. Isn't it great?

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Peace
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 11:15 PM

I LOVE THIS THREAD!

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 11:17 PM

brucie,

IF the Dems had agreed with you, and treated Clinton as he should have been, I would have no problem with whatever they want to charge O'Reilly with- BUT THEY DID NOT.

"No doubt that Clinton was a liar." BUT THE DEMS SAID THAT WAS OK.


There have been numerous TV figures in similar situation. It is worthwhile to look at the peple who present the news- but to have one set of standards for those you agree with and another for those you disagree with is BIGOTRY.

Next thing, you will say that he should be prosecuted because he is caucasian. Or maybe Irish? Anyway, that is not an acceptable standard in the United States. Is this really so difficult for you to understand?

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 11:34 PM

No shades of gray in your world, eh, BBruce? Scaife was stalking Clinton as surely as Rove (ala Atwater) stalks anyone Bush is running against. Moreso. You can't see a difference between lying about a sexual relationship (harmless except to Bill and his immediate family) and Bush lying about the substantive facts and going to war because of those lies? Thosands of deaths are directly attributable to Bush's lies.

O'Reilly is a hypocrite and has tried many people in the court of public opinion. Turnabout's fair play.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Peace
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 11:48 PM

Please have no misunderstanding about this, BB. I have zero respect for Clinton. I am into negative quantities of respect to do with Bush.

FOX, for a long time, has abused its position. News reporters and news stations have no place shaping public opinion. I know the reality, but partisanship should not be part of the equation. FOX is a little bit partisan. Now, we shall see what we shall see. They are looking just a bit shady, and for once what they have been doing to others is happening to them. I like it. Very much. Allow me this little chuckle. They deserve it. It's fitting to see their 'reputation' (such as it is) under scrutiny. And I gotta say once more, this is very cool.

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 11:54 PM

"News reporters and news stations have no place shaping public opinion."

I wish you actually applied this to all parties.... It seems to me that Dan Rathers was certainly trying...

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Peace
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 11:56 PM

You bet, and he got his peepee slapped for it. It's about time the area of yellow journalism got its peepee slapped, and that is beginning to happen. FOX is getting back a little of what it's been dishing out. I love it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 12:04 AM

bb

No matter what Clinton did, it cannot justify Bill O'Reilly. You're trying to turn the thread from "O'Reilly is a jerk" to "Democrats are jerks."

"Next thing, you will say that he should be prosecuted because he is caucasian. Or maybe Irish?"

Wrong. I was going to say next that he should be prosecuted because otherwise men will be marrying their uncles or their spaniels. Or both.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Amergin
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 12:30 AM

Well...BB...why did you throw Clinton in my face? What makes you assume I am a Clinton admirer?

Besides the difference between O'Reilly and Clinton is that Clinton is openly a politician. O'Reilly claims to be a newsman, but is nothing but a progandist. He is only out to make a few bucks.

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 12:33 AM

how about bill o'reilly gets prosecuted because he broke laws involving sexual harassment of an employee? any body think we don't need laws about that? if we have them and he broke them, shouldn't he be prosecuted no matter whether we like democrats or not? can BB possibly entertain a question this direct without his brain exploding?

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 12:57 AM

Bill O'Reilly is not being prosecuted. He is not being charged with anything. He is being sued for harassment. Totally a private matter between two citizens.

I'm sorry Beardedbruce but with regard to this matter everyone who has implied that you are being a jerk is pretty much on the money.

No hypocracy has been committed, the Clinton matter is an entirely different thing.

Why don't you just blame President Clinton for the Economy and the 9/11 attacks? George W. Bush does, why not you?

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 02:04 AM

SRS - I have to disagree (harmless except to Bill and his immediate family).

I think that Bill harmed the whole country with his little act of indiscretion, not to mention Monica. Personally, I don't care but I think O'reilly and Clinton both abused positions of power.

I'm beginning to see why we are considered infidels.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 03:22 AM

Folks get caught with their pants down, literally. Does it matter? If it affects their status as upholding certain views that are in direct opposition- yes, there's going to be negative fallout. There's also going to be fallout if they lie about it.

Clinton will now always be remembered for his affair with Monica Lewinsky. You think that's what he hoped for when he took office? He's been judged, if not in the overblown and inappropriate way in a Commission led by a man who was fishing to fry him up, than certainly by the public.

It's O'Reilly's turn.

This is nothing new, folks. Men have trouble not thinking with their "peepees" as brucie so lyrically refers to them. Would they were only used for that purpose...but then, what would be left for the media, ANY media to write about?

..xx..e

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 03:43 PM

If, in his hatred of Clinton, Sciafe hadn't dredged up Paula Jones at the (literally!) last hour and forced the depositions that lead the the Lewinsky thing turning public, no one would have known or cared. What I find so appalling is that everyone can get so bent out of shape over a stupid sex act by consenting adults. Clinton was stupid for getting involved with a twit who knew so little about human nature that she could gossip about the president and not have it get around. They both deserve a dope slap. If you'll look at the photos of Lewinsky in the crowd or around the president, that is not a young woman who is feeling picked upon. The O'Reilly case is entirely different.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Amos
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 04:24 PM

One of the differences is that Clinton, a wily politician (ONE "L") was nevertheless compassionate and grounded in seeking the well-bieng of the majority. Dope-slapping notwithstanding.

O'Reily is paid for being an establishment loudmouth who feels that trampling on other viewpoints is the right way to conduct dialogue and that power is proof. He is wrong-minded in this regard, and hence may inherit the wind.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 04:40 PM

O'Reilly's problem here is that he's a moralist who so often questions the actions of others. It doesn't make what he has done any worse but it does make it difficult for him to defend it without getting his own words thrown back in his face.

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 05:30 PM

Bearded Brucie

Clinton was dealt a smear campaign by Republicans using Paula Jones as a tool for their end. It was a personal matter that they tried to turn into a legal trap to get Clinton. The Flowers lady was also discredited. It was the famous pornographer, Kenneth Starr who was responsible for Clinton's testimony. It's a different ball game with O'Reilly.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 08:17 PM

"O'Reily is paid for being an establishment loudmouth who feels that trampling on other viewpoints is the right way to conduct dialogue and that power is proof."

This is a Democracy. I've told you what I think, so now, Shut Up!

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 08:23 PM

GUEST, Frank

Lying to a grand jury is a felony.


Oh, I forgot- it depends on what the definition of "is " is...

Clinton chose to lie to a grand jury. He could have told the truth, or taken the fifth- BUT HE CHOSE TO LIE.


Or will you allow me to commit a felony, and declare that someone else was out to get me, so I should be let off?

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 08:40 PM

BeardedBruce, you just don't get it. He shouldn't have had to go before the grand jury, and all the rest of it shouldn't have been visited on him. His reluctance to embarrass himself and his family is understandable and considering the circumstances that put him in that position, I don't hold it against him. Now why don't you start worrying about something important, like how the hell Bush lied his way into a war that has just about the whole world pissed off at the U.S. He squandered his opportunity for a global approach to dealing with terrorism after Sept. 11, 2001. He has the power to make war, so he feels entitled to use it. Don't give me the nonsense and all of the flimsy sources of information about Saddham's "intentions sometime in the future to resume weapons of mass destruction." He didn't have them.

Or address the topic at hand on it's own terms, not Bill Clinton's. Bill O'Reilly is hoist in his own petard. Serves him right.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Peace
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 08:42 PM

But, BB, this is about Bill O, not Bill C.

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 08:54 PM

You know, when my kids were going to school I never accepted the excuse "The other kids are doing it," and you really shouldn't either, bb.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 09:05 PM

Clint,

When the teacher lets one kid get away with it, that is a good excuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 10:10 PM

"When the teacher lets one kid get away with it, that is a good excuse."

No. Just because A gets away with something doesn't make it right for B to do it. Just because you get away with it doesn't make it ethical.

Try killing somebody and telling the judge that there are unsolved murders, which means other people are getting away with it, so you should too.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 10:17 PM

But when the teacher says "that's ok, you can do that all you want " to the first kid...


Not the same thing as unsolved murders- The police are not catching the murderers, finding them guilty, and THEN letting them go without punishment.


"Just because A gets away with something doesn't make it right for B to do it"

So, by your standards, you will hold the Kerry campaign to the same standards that you hold the Bush? And who sent the memos to 60 Minutes? I guess anything is ok, as long as the PROPER side wins...

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 10:24 PM

"And who sent the memos to 60 Minutes?"

The same guy who betrayed Valerie Plame, Karl Rove.

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 10:25 PM

Jack,

Do you have a source for that?

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 10:33 PM

My source is a good as yours is. The difference is I was kidding and you take Bush campaign propaganda way way to seriously. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 11:00 PM

"My source is a good as yours is. "

Except I was asking a question, and you were making a statement...

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 11:06 PM

""Just because A gets away with something doesn't make it right for B to do it"

"So, by your standards, you will hold the Kerry campaign to the same standards that you hold the Bush?"

Certainly. (Although I hope I'm never photographed holding the Bush.)

"And who sent the memos to 60 Minutes?"

I don't know who sent the memos. Except that it was either an extremely dumb Kerry supporter or an extremely smart Bush supporter. And, of course a dishonest person in either case. Why would I support a forger?

"I guess anything is ok, as long as the PROPER side wins... "

You may think so, but I don't. Mr Cheney apparently thinks so too; he's been linking Iraq and 9/11 long after Mr Bush admitted there's no connection.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 11:09 PM

It looked like an accusation with a question mark. Are you saying that you had simply tried to change the subject?

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 01:56 AM

Don't you guys get it? BB is a dumbass and O'Reilly is his favorite TV star and if we don't stop dissing him pretty soon BB gonna bring up Bill Clinton again!!

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 09:43 AM

He certainly has a schoolyard mentality when it comes to argument--bring up everything else and diffuse the subject away from what is under discussion. I think GUEST pegged it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 12:47 PM

Re: President Clinton... justice was denied Paula Jones. It was denied her because people with a political axe to grind used her as a tool in their attempted defacto coup d'état. And the US electorate was denied their rights as voters because their legitimately elected president was tied up in a lot of legal busy work during a time when he should have been doing the job of being president.

The Supreme Court should have ruled that Paula Jones was entitled to her day in court after President Clinton finished his job of being president. Had they done so, the taxpayers of the US would have had several million more of their tax dollars available for the things that are important to them, and Paula Jones would have been able to have her day in court untainted by any hint of political axe-grinding.

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 01:13 PM

Bearded Bruce,

By your logic, George W. Bush should be behind bars for lying to Congress
about the war and to the public. Clinton lied about his sex life. It's more of
a crime to lie about a war than about one's sex life. Clinton was still hounded by the Reactionary Republicans who tried to nail him on a sex sting. Unfortunately for the country, they suceeded. Bush has done more harm to this country than Clinton ever did. Bill was responsible for Monica. Bush is responsible for sending innocent young men and women to their deaths in Iraq.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Amos
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 01:20 PM

And there is a lot of difference between the bloody deaths and mutilations with which Bush's orders have littered the ground in Iraq, and a stained blue dress. Both were covered up by falsification, but the ground truth is that on eviolates a local code of morals, but otherwise did little harm; the other has inflicted the ultimate harm on uncounted thousands of humans.

Doing this for personal gain, or some sort of clique support, or from some sort of religous delusion, is a despicable course of action.

O'Reilly's shame is that he claims to offer a public forum while supporting such a despicable course of action. He poisons his forum with bias, hatred, and the promotion of death for others.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Nerd
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 04:39 PM

Also, BB,

Lying to a grand jury is a felony.

It actually isn't. Perjury is a felony, but perjury has more features than simply "lying." In particular, it is not perjury if the lie is wholly immaterial to the case being investigated. Since, theoretically, the case being investigated was Whitewater, there is a good legal argument to be made that all of the sexual stuff was wholly immaterial.

Beyond this, the specific allegations of perjury do not stand up anyway. It is true that the reasons for this are fairly legalistic, but a decision as to whether he committed perjury must necessarily be legalistic.

For example, his claim that he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky was legally true, because Paula Jones's Lawyers crafted a stupid definition of sexual relations that required that Clinton be touching certain specific body parts of another person (not the mouth) with parts of his own body, with the intention of giving pleasure. This was not Clinton's defintion, but the prosecution's. All he has to be is an asshole who didn't want her to enjoy the sex, and he could have full intercourse and have it not be sex BY THE DEFINITION HE WAS INSTRUCTED BY THE COURT TO OBSERVE. Beyond that, the two sex acts he is accused of specifically don't qualify even if he wanted her to have an orgasm, receiving oral sex because her mouth doesn't count as one of the defined body parts, the cigar thing because that's not his own body touching her.   

Each of the serious perjury accusations falls apart under this kind of scrutiny, which is why Clinton WAS NOT CONVICTED by the Senate. Note, HE IS NOT A PERJURER because he was ACQUITTED of the charges. Forgot that part, BB?

In addition, there are other perjury accusations made in the House (such as, Clinton advised Monica to lie in an affadavit), for which there was never any evidence, and plenty of contradictory evidence. These, I do not think, were even made into formal charges--but House republicans clucked and moaned a lot in the congressional proceedings about them.

BB, I think people are amused by Bill O'Reilly is not that they hate this particular crime so much, it's because he spends all his time being so judgmental. Clinton never judged anyone else's sex life, but O'Reilly does it all the time. This makes O'Reilly's predicament funny. He'll just have to suck it up for a while, but his audience is probably as hypocritical as he is, so they will gladly keep watching him jusge others by standards he himself cannot meet. I predict no long-term repercussions for Ol' BO.

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Amos
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 05:40 PM

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris16.html provides part of the scandalous story....

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: DougR
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 09:54 PM

Hmmm. I wasn't aware Bill O'Reilly had been convicted. Accused, yes, but convicted? Will someone please provide a link that substantiates that?

DougR