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

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 10:28 PM

Not only has he not been convicted but he hasn't even been investgated. He is being sued Doug. He is being sued.

So I don't guess that you are going to get that link. The good news is that you may get some sort of award for asking the most irrelevant question. :D

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Peace
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 11:13 PM

I admire both BB and Doug. They have to support the Republicans, and there ain't all that much there TO support. Look at who ya got. Dubya, Rove, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and those who toe the party line, like B O'R. Whew! That is a tough row to hoe. But, given the weak substance of those on whose behalf they argue, one has to admire their stamina and tenacity.

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: DougR
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 01:23 AM

Irrelevent, Jack the Sailor? The man is being charged, tried, and convicted by the majority of posters on this thread and the law suit he filed against the accuser hasn't even been tried? That's irrevelent? Says a lot about your sense of justice JTS.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 01:26 AM

DougR


Conservative- guilty regardless of evidence

Liberal - innocent regardless of evidence








At least they are consistant.

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Nerd
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 03:30 PM

Ha, ha, BB. You talked your head up your ass on that one.

Clinton was sued for sexual harrassment by Paula Jones, and every one of the accusations she made, backed up by the most powerful special prosecutors in history, failed to win the case. It was dismissed.

Then the accusations of perjury were also dismissed.

But to YOU, Clinton is guilty. YOU refer to "Clinton's perjury in a grand jury" above, which never happened. Clinton did not commit perjury, as the Senate correctly determined. There is also no evidence he sexually harrassed Paula Jones, as the court found. But you'll continue to accuse him as if he was tried and convicted.

And you'll accuse US of claiming people are guilty regardless of evidence.

No, you're the hypocrite, my friend. I'm willing to wait and see if O'Reilly is guilty, and enjoy his discomfort in the meantime, because he's an asshole. If he turns out not to be guilty, then I promise that five years later I will SHUT UP about it, not keep bringing it up as you do with Clinton who was NOT CONVICTED.

This has nothing to do with trying and "convicting" O'Reilly--as we've pointed out, it's a lawsuit, not a criminal trial. It just has to do with the poetic justice of seeing someone who spends his life accusing others getting accused himself. If the evidence is there to back it up (and by all preliminary indications, it seems to be) then so much the better!

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: DougR
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 03:36 PM

Nerd: I don't know where you are getting your information. Perhaps you read different accounts of history than I do, but Bill Clinton DID commit perjury, and he did it before a Grand Jury.

And I don't believe the case Paula Jones brought against good ole' Bill was dismissed, I think she settled out of court.

Whose right?

BB: Yes, you are correct of course. "Progressives" are NEVER wrong about ANYTHING.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Amos
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 03:40 PM

I think it is ironic and somewhat poetic that Bill O'Reilly, who has lambasted so many with hot partisan rhetoric and vehement verbal violence in an effort to override their viewpoints, should be judged without due process, himself, as he has done to so many others.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Once Famous
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 03:42 PM

I love how the O'Reilly bashers have him guilty and his dick cut off before his day in court.

Personally, I think this ex-producer is looking to make some money off of him.

Death to womanizers! Right, ladies?

Men like pussy, ladies. At least most men do.

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 04:30 PM

Bill Oreilly convicted by Mudcat Forum.   NO trial necessary.   Guilty for being an independant and presenting both sides of the issue.   Guilty as charged for not being a usefull idiot of the press.

Lets see, Clinton raped Jaunita, had oral sex with monica, groped a few others, (not to mention paula, and dolly) but that is OK because he meant well on the issues.

Bill Oreilly is being sued by a producer who was with him for over 4 years, went to CNN, and then went back to work for him at Fox.   A NYC restaurant owner testified in sworn deposition that she had a crush on Oreilly and was very fond of him.    Based on that we find Oreilly guilty without a trial.

Bobert- I have a great conspiracy theory for you to check out.   Maybe she went to CNN and came back as a spy to incriminate him.   After all, Oreilly is cleaning their clocks in the ratings and they would do anything to get him off the air.   Please call Oliver Stone and check this out for me.

This thread is just to funny.    Pure partisan speak.    And the venom for a guy who comes down hard on all candidates- both parties.

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Amos
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 04:41 PM

Nah, it isn't that he shouldn't have his day in court. It's just his karma to be steamrollered -- have you watched him tear apart people?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Once Famous
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 05:42 PM

He tears apart some who deserve it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 05:45 PM

But he can't take it when it's dished out to him. He walked out of the interview with Terry Gross when she turned up the heat. Wuss.

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Brían
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 05:53 PM

Well for the information on Bill and Paula Jones you can look to the BBC

Brían

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Brían
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 06:00 PM

If O'Reilly is so fair and Balanced, I don't understand why I can't stomach him.

To be fair, anyone can bring suit against someone. Let's let him have his day in court whatever our opinions are asisde.


Brían

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Amos
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 08:32 PM

Sure; but his day in court will not make him any more stomach-able! :D

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Sam L
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 09:07 PM

Its ridiculously childish to say that Dems or progressives or liberals think Clinton is okay for whatever paticular thing, when many don't, some closest to him felt personally betrayed, and refused his political help, probably to their loss. Whether you think an insane amount of time and money was spent pursuing personal matters, most people have to agree he was outrageously stupid.

On the other hand, he was in the ballpark of competent for the job of chief executive. The current president isn't, his admirable resolve is actually stupid predictability. Maybe if he'd seen combat he'd know better than to be predictable. As I've said before, he's Sonny, not Michael, on the standard Corleone scale. Elect him at your own and everyone's risk. Everyone has to vote their own mind, but please don't do it with this childish "Dems say this!" attitude. It's very dumb.

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 09:12 PM

Why does anyone really care?? What cheap thrills does anyone get from this? This does not make him a hypocrit because it has not been proven. Unless anyone has evidence, it is probably best to shut up.

I can't stand Bill O'Reilly. Martin said he attacks those that deserve it. Wrong. He attacks those that he sees to be weak and he stacks the cards in his favor so there won't be a fair fight. They are playing in his ballpark and he owns the toys.   He is cheap and tawdry.

What he did or did not do with this producer really holds little interest. There are more important stories happening and I am shocked that so many of you have spent time writing. I guess I am shocked that I added my two cents to this mess.

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 09:12 PM

Hey, everybody- just a reminder-

this isn't about Bill Clinton!

(Although to the true-blue NeoCon Neanderthal, I suppose
EVERYTHING is about Bill Clinton)

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: GUEST,Stilly River Sage
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 09:41 PM

Nope, you're right. But in his usual inimitable fashion, BeardedBruce has once again changed the subject instead of standing his ground on O'Reilly. Obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate.

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: GUEST,BabyBeardedBruce
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 12:45 AM

WAHHHH!!! i wannatalk about bill clinton!! he's so bad!! he played with monica's peepee!!! bill clinton, bill clinton, bill clinton!! WAHHHHHHH!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: DougR
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 01:25 AM

Amos, Brian: if Bill O'Reilly is so distasteful to you, why do you watch him? You do have other choices you know. How about Bill Maher? Now there is a fair, nonpartisan guy, right?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 01:33 AM

Nerd:

During the House Judiciary Committee hearings, though, Clinton's legal team released a 184-page document which defends the president in highly specific terms.
First, a brush-up on the definition of perjury. Perjury means (a) knowingly (b) making a false statement (c) about material facts (d) while under oath. It's not perjury if you honestly believe what you're saying is true, or if your lie is irrelevant to the issue you're under oath about. Moreover, the Supreme Court has ruled that it's OK for "a wily witness [to] succeed in derailing the questioner--so long as the witness speaks the literal truth." Disingenuousness and misleading (but not technically inaccurate) answers are not perjury. Finally, you're off the hook for perjury if a subsequent statement in the same proceeding corrects an otherwise perjurious statement.

Even so, does Clinton have a case? Here are the accusations and Clinton's replies:

Perjury #1A: Undefined Sex.

Paula Jones' lawyers asked whether Clinton had had a "sexual affair" with Lewinsky. He answered no. His lawyers argue that Clinton believes "sexual affair" means "sexual intercourse." If this is indeed what Clinton believes--and since no one has alleged that Clinton and Lewinsky had sexual intercourse--his testimony wasn't perjurious. Clinton's defenders have pointed to several dictionaries to show that his definition is not completely eccentric. Moreover, Lewinsky says Clinton told her he belives sexual intercourse and sexual relations to be equivalent terms.

Perjury #1B: Defined Sex.

Paula Jones' lawyers handed Clinton a now famous definition of "sexual relations"--"contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of a person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person"--and asked whether he'd had these sort of relations with Lewinsky. Clinton answered no. Kenneth Starr asked Clinton the same question before a grand jury, and again Clinton answered no.

Clinton's lawyers point out that "this narrow definition did not include certain physical acts." This, of course, is an indirect way of saying that it doesn't include oral sex. But what about Lewinsky's claim that Clinton touched her breasts? Clinton's lawyers admit that if Lewinsky is correct then Clinton perjured himself. But they point out that, under Federal law, one person's testimony is not enough to prove perjury. (The Supreme Court has ruled that perjury cannot be proved by "an oath against an oath.") So Clinton's lawyers are technically correct in concluding that "this is not a case of perjury ... the factual record would not support a prosecution for perjury."

The emphasis here is less on I-didn't-do-it than on you-can't-prove-it.

Perjury #2: Alone with Monica.

Paula Jones' attorneys asked Clinton whether he was ever alone in a room with Lewinsky. Clinton answered "I don't recall." Later Jones' attorneys asked whether it was possible that they were alone, even though Clinton had no specific memory of such an event, and Clinton answered yes.

Clinton's lawyers say that "the president did not testify that he was never alone with Ms. Lewinsky." The lawyers say the second comment--that they might have been alone together even though he doesn't remember it--makes this clear. He was just saying he doesn't recall. But saying you don't recall something when you really do is a false assertion of fact and therefore is perjury just as much as denying that same something outright. The only difference is that it is a lot harder to prove.

Perjury #3: Giving and receiving gifts.

Paula Jones' attorneys asked Clinton whether he had given or received gifts from Monica Lewinsky. He said he'd definitely given her a gift from the Black Dog, a store on Martha's Vineyard. He said he wasn't sure whether he'd given her a book, and he'd received gifts from her "once or twice." We know that many more gifts were exchanged.

Clinton's lawyers reply that he admitted to giving and receiving some gifts. They contend this is the only "material" issue. Of course not everyone agrees about what is material, but it's a reasonable legal defense--lies must be important to count as perjury. Clinton's lawyers also argue that they weren't willful falsehoods--that Clinton believed he was telling the truth. The argument is that if he'd wanted to lie about the gifts, he'd have denied receiving any at all. So the fact that he admitted to a few suggests that he intended to be truthful. Another argument, which Clinton's lawyers do not make but others have, is that it's technically true to say you have received one or two gifts when you have received a total of 40.

Perjury #4A: Conversations with Lewinsky

Jones' attorneys asked Clinton to say when he last met with Lewinsky. Clinton said he wasn't sure, but it was "probably sometime before Christmas." Clinton was also asked if, at that time, she said she had been subpoenaed. (The questioners were trying to establish that Clinton pressured Lewinsky to lie.) Clinton said, "I don't know." It is undisputed that, at their last meeting on Dec. 28, Lewinsky said she'd been subpoenaed.

Clinton's lawyers maintain that it's unclear whether Clinton was even talking about the Dec. 28 meeting when he said "I don't know." Since he had claimed not to remember any meeting after Christmas, it's possible the "I don't know" referred to their last meeting before Christmas, where he and Lewinsky in fact didn't discuss her subpoena.

Perjury #4B: Conversations with Vernon Jordan about Lewinsky

Vernon Jordan testified before the grand jury that he had two conversations with Lewinsky in Dec. 1997, and that he told Clinton about both. Both times, Jordan says, he mentioned that Lewinsky had been subpoenaed. Jones' lawyers asked Clinton whether anyone other than his attorneys had told Clinton about the subpoenas. Clinton said "I don't think so," then another question was asked, and Clinton replied "Bruce Lindsey ...[was] the first person [who] told me she was [subpoenaed]."

Clinton's lawyers claim that this second answer ("Bruce Lindsey ... [was] the first...") didn't answer the intervening question but finished the first answer ("I don't think so") instead. And since the fact that Bruce Lindsey was the first to mention the subpoena isn't inconsistent with Jordan's testimony--Jordan might have been the second or third--the lawyers say it's not proof of perjury.

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 01:33 AM

The President's defenders have argued repeatedly that his perjury doesn't matter because his testimony was immaterial; it occurred in a civil case that was eventually dismissed; and in any case the offense was too minor to be taken seriously. Let's examine their claims more closely.

These arguments can only be judged in the context of an understanding of what perjury is and why it is treated as a serious offence. Like other "crimes against the court" (subornation, obstruction, witness tampering, etc.) perjury tends to subvert the entire legal system by making it difficult to arrive at the truth. This undermines public confidence that a just result will usually be reached. The effect extends far beyond the specific case, so the law quite properly treats the offence as equally serious in all cases regardless of the final outcome. So much for the point that this was a civil case that was eventually dismissed.

Certainly the relevance of the testimony to the case at hand is important. If a false statement is not material, it cannot affect the administration of justice, and so is not regarded as perjury. However, in Mr. Clinton's case, his false statements were clearly relevant to the case for "quid pro quo" harassment that the plaintiffs were trying to make. Judge Starr certainly thought the statements were material, and Judge Wright agreed, despite absurd claims to the contrary. If she had thought that these statements were not material, she would never have agreed to exclude evidence related to Ms. Lewinsky from the Jones case in order to avoid interfering with Starr's investigation of possible perjury charges. After all, if the statements were not material, how could there be any perjury charges to investigate?

We finally come to the question of how seriouly this offense should be treated. It should be obvious that a highly publicized case of flagrant perjury by a prominent citizen will have a greater effect on the public trust than perjury in an obscure case by a little-known individual. And perjury committed by an official in a highly responsible position can have a dramatic effect in undermining confidence and respect for the legal process. These considerations are taken into account routinely in deciding whether to prosecute: if a judge or lawyer is found to have committed perjury (or any crime against the court), he will certainly be disbarred and almost always sent to prison. The reasons for this policy apply with enormous force to the President. Clearly an offence of this nature on the part of the highest law-enforcement officer of the country, if left unpunished, will have a deadly effect on the public's regard for the law.

Thus it is clear that not only are all of these arguments for excusing the President unfounded, but that there are the strongest possible reasons for taking this offence very seriously indeed and punishing it with the utmost severity.

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 01:35 AM

Reactions so far to Clinton's latest round of perjury are mixed, but modestly encouraging. The naysayers complain that his responses to Chairman Hyde's 81 Requests for Admission are predictable and useless. Others, including some liberals, have been astounded by the arrogance and brazenness with which Clinton continues to treat this matter.

In an earlier column I contended that Hyde's requests were a masterstroke because they would force Clinton either to admit the factual allegations, thereby narrowing the issues and expediting the hearings, or face responsibility for requiring the committee to call further witnesses to support charges he refuses to admit. Of course, this strategy will only work if the committee has the mettle to follow up and hold Clinton's feet to the fire.

Clinton's answers have produced more of a stir than expected, rekindling the ire of Republicans and igniting that of some Democrats, even if they do not ultimately effect a change in the outcome of these proceedings. Again, he has admitted none of the incriminating allegations, proving that his repeated professions of contrition have been a ruse. Apologies without confessions are meaningless. Because the answers constitute further felonies they demonstrate that Clinton's criminal activities are ongoing and completely discredit those who say his transgressions ended at some finite point in the past. Mr. Clinton has finally completed the lying circuit by managing to lie to all three branches of government: the executive, when he denied the affair to his staff so they would vicariously commit perjury for him, the judiciary with the Jones deposition and the grand jury, and now Congress.

Clinton's defenders cannot be heard to protest anymore that he was lying to cover up sexual activities. No, his sexual misconduct is now common knowledge to the literate world. He is lying to Congress to save his skin, not his family. Don't let one more liberal tell you that these lies are about sex; they are about obstructing criminal and constitutional justice and salvaging his irretrievably lost legacy.

In addition to reiterating his previous lies he added at least one major whopper. Clinton testified in the Jones deposition that he did not know if Lewinsky had been subpoenaed, but before the grand jury he swore that he did know at the time of the deposition that she had been subpoenaed. As a result of this wholesale contradiction Hyde asked him in questions 20 and 21 to specify in which instance he was telling the truth. Before you read the answers, don't ever underestimate Clinton's capacity to dissemble with nonpareil creativity. He's quite a gifted perjurer.

How can justice be served by compromising with a person who hasn't even stopped committing crimes? When a defendant in a criminal case receives probation pursuant to a plea bargain, he better not commit any crimes during his probationary period or he'll go to the slammer. Yet Clinton seeks lenient treatment while in the very process of committing additional felonies. What effrontery! It's tantamount to a criminal defendant committing further perjuries during his sentencing hearing on a perjury charge while feigning contrition as a means to leniency. It's also like a child being warned that if he doesn't apologize for smacking his brother he will be punished and, in the process of apologizing, he hits his brother again (right in front of his parents). That's what we are dealing with: ongoing criminal infractions by Clinton in broad daylight with the cameras rolling, just daring us to do something about it.

Clinton's responses are grossly insulting to our intelligence and exhibit an even more cavalier attitude than anticipated. Just as with his grand jury testimony, he arrogated to himself the prerogative to determine which questions he would answer and which he would duck. He also consolidated answers to various clusters of questions -- a neat ploy to avoid answering certain questions directly. Any ordinary litigant who tried this would be inviting the court's wrath. But should we really expect more from a man to whom the American people have shamelessly sold their souls; a man whose Democratic colleagues have lied and cheated to protect; and a man whose Republican opponents have failed to demonstrate a unified commitment to bring to justice?

Call me a foolish optimist for holding out hope, but maybe this time Bill Clinton has gone too far. Maybe he has tempted fate a bit too much by casually adding this one last repugnant and conspicuous layer of paper to his rap sheet.

Perhaps this latest display of unbridled insolence will become the final straw that will make Congress realize that by its continued indulgence of this incorrigible, perennial adolescent they are literally commissioning his further felonies, his further disgrace of his office and the irreversible debasement of the Constitution. How much more damage to this country and its sacred institutions will President Clinton's bipartisan enablers permit before they make this glorified knave accountable?

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 01:37 AM

Since January, apologists for Bill Clinton had been claiming that he didn't have sex outside of marriage, and certainly not with Monica Lewinsky. After even Slick Willy sort-of-admitted to it, their story instantly changed to "it's only his personal life", as if such events, occurring as they did during the scope of Clinton's (and Lewinsky's) employment and in the Oval Office of the President of the United States, were expected to be private business.

Now the apologists, spinmeisters, and media shills are calling for censure of the President, as if slapping his hand, together with the embarrassment he's already suffered (and Clinton himself is responsible for that embarrassment, anyway...not Kenneth Starr, Matt Drudge, or anyone else), should be enough punishment for anyone.

Well, ignoring the lurid tales of sex that we're all tired of, and ignoring even things such as "abuse of power", we're left with what even the New York Times calls an obvious perjury. But let's call things what they are: perjury is a felony, the most serious type of crime there is in American law. In fact, according to this citation in Federal Law, perjury can be considered as serious as other felonies such as murder, counterfeiting, forgery, embezzlement, robbery, burglary, arson, and piracy. When you're convicted of Federal perjury, it's no laughing matter: you lose your right to vote as well as many other civil rights, and you're subject to penalties up to five years in prison and $250,000 fine.

So the attempts to convince the American people that the case against the President is based on nothing but sex or that the charges are not impeachable offenses are nothing but attempted fraud. And if the President gets nothing but a slap on the wrist for perjury, the signal that would send to every judge, jury, and accused person in America is simple: the truth no longer matters. If that's the outcome, we can bid our system of justice farewell forever...not to mention that it will be impossible for any parent to look their child in the face ever again and talk about lying, George Washington, and cherry trees.
-- David Fiedler

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 01:41 AM

Making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
Withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
Approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counseling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;
Interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;
Approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities;


















Oh, wait- this is from Nixon's impeachment..... I guess that was an entirely different manner

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Nerd
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 02:00 AM

Beardedbruce,

yes, you have outlined the perjury accusations and showed exactly why none of them stuck. In so doing, you plagiarized the explanation from Slate Magazine's Bruce Gottlieb. The rest of your screed(s) are cut and paste from other right-wing opinion-mongering shops like WorldNetDaily. Big whoop! It won't convince anyone.

Remember that it is the prosecution's responsibility to ask follow-up questions. If Clinton says "I don't know" or "I don't recall" or "I think it was probably before Christmas" it is not perjury. One is innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution must then state "testimony from Ms. Lewinsky indicates that you met on the 28th, and that she did indeed tell you about a subpoena. Here is her deposition. Do you remember these incidents?" Then they could have subpoenaed his secretary and seized his calendar, reminded him of details until he was forced to admit the meeting. They didn't do any of that. This is largely because it was immaterial and everyone knew it; Clinton did not ask Monica to lie in her deposition and indeed avoided even the appearance of such a thing by refusing to look at it before she turned it in. So the prosecutors were just fishing, he did not take the bait and they moved on. That's how this stuff works in court. To later claim it was perjury is ludicrous, and would not (and did not) stand up in court.

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: GUEST,BabyBeardedBruce
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 02:40 AM

WAHHH!!!billclintonbillclintonbillclinton!!!5 straight bullshit posts!!!you won't talk about my billoreilly!! WON"T! WON'T!!! you're not fit to lick his boots!!!WAHHH!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Amos
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 08:12 AM

With fans like that, Bill O'Reilly, the subject of this thread, deserves whatever he gets.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Wolfgang
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 08:18 AM

(I hope it gets better after your election and we sometimes can have a decent discussion again)

Of course, Bearded Bruce wants to change the subject of this thread in a partisan manner and prefers to talk about Clinton. In my eyes, close to everything he is accused of in here by many posters is correct.

However, I could join in that chorus with more fun and conviction if I would not remember clearly that many Mudcatters complaining about BB's tactic use the same ruse themselves when it suits them or at the very least do not call it what it is when they see it done by others in other threads.

The out of context 'but remember what Clinton did' of the one side is mirrored by the out of context' 'Bush has never been elected' or 'Let's rather talk about Bush's errors' of the other side. There are innumerable (not in the verbatim sense) examples of that during the last four years. Someone starts a thread about Arafat allegedly embezzling monies, a Mudcatter thinks that is a good thread to mention Bush and many many more.

As I said, I could join in the chorus, but I would sing not only about BB but also about some of you others.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Amos
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 09:25 AM

This opens the door to an interesting scientific study about alteration in communication systems (human), don't you think, Wolfgang? How, when and where do things get twisted in human messaging? Are there certain kinds of people who alter and distort meaning as it gets passed through a relay? Do some people relay with accuracy more than others? Are there other characteristics that are co-varibale with reliable receipt and forwarding of human messages? For example, is bright, white teeth one of them? Clean ears? Body odor?

Lots to learn here.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: freda underhill
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 09:39 AM

this is a punch N judy show..

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Wolfgang
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 10:44 AM

Amos, you're right, that would be an interesting study.
Are there other characteristics that are co-varibale with reliable receipt and forwarding of human messages?
The only result I remember (and of course I would be likely to remember such a result) is that skeptics are much more likely to correctly recollect a result not fitting into their world view than believers. But I do not want to digress into another field.

And then, of course, we should not forget that pretending misunderstanding someone else can be used as a weapon in a discussion as the following example from a Mudcat thread about Venezuela shows:

President Chavez has been democratically elected (Escamillo)

Unlike one person further North. (McGrath)

further North? Oh I see: Castro! (Wolfgang)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Amos
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 10:59 AM

Humor is definitely one of the variables in altered communication. But most humor occurs without pretense -- I mean, the joker knows and acknowledges freely he is changing meanings for the sake of the joke.

The interesting population is those who are unaware but who predictably alter meanings. Maybe there is a division between those who alter for the worse and those who alter for the better, such as softening bad news.

Maybe there's a correlation between alteration and density??

This could really get interesting.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 11:18 AM

BeardedBruce is using Clinton as a straw man, to suggest that those who would laugh and point at O'Reilly for being caught in his own trap should instead study how Clinton was "really" guilty of such a thing (even though the Senate didn't find him guilty), and comes from the other side of the political spectrum. Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah. He's distracting the participants from the subject of the post and the implied charges (implied by the presence of a lawsuit), that O'Reilly is a prick. He may get away with it in front of the camera, where right-wingers perceive of this public innuendo and bludgeoning as as entertainment, but in the workplace it's illegal. The standards are different in a personal injury lawsuit than in a criminal case. Remember O.J.? He was acquitted by the jury in the criminal trial, but found guilty in the personal injury trial and order to pay millions to the Brown family. This co-worker/employee is getting him where he lives by clobbering his pocket-book. His folks are hoping to counter with their lawsuit, but I predict the counter-suit will be thrown out as frivolous.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 07:48 PM

Wolfgang,

"Of course, Bearded Bruce wants to change the subject of this thread in a partisan manner and prefers to talk about Clinton. In my eyes, close to everything he is accused of in here by many posters is correct.

However, I could join in that chorus with more fun and conviction if I would not remember clearly that many Mudcatters complaining about BB's tactic use the same ruse themselves when it suits them or at the very least do not call it what it is when they see it done by others in other threads."

Absolutely correct. I had made ( the obviously wrong assumption ) that I would be judged by the same standards, and held to the same standars as the other posters here. Since I am not one of the annointed Chosen ones, I guess I am just supposed to be quiet and take all that I am told as gospel.

My posts re Clinton were because of the erroneous posting that the Clinton impeachment was about SEX- IT WAS ABOUT PERJURY. But having been informed by those here that ARE TO BE OBEYED, I guess I have to go back and alter history to match the "TRUTH"

I guess noone noticed the satire in the last posting I made....

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Amos
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 08:10 PM

Maybe you poured on a bit too much bitterness, BB?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Peace
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 09:16 PM

". . . and would not (and did not) stand up in court."

It stood up in the Oval Office.

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 09:47 PM

Maybe bb & the spirit of Warren Zevon could do a duet of "Poor, Poor Pitiful Me"??

Dunno which is worse- a ranting neo-con or a whining neo-con.

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 11:50 PM

Whatever happened to Donuel? I'd like to see a cartoon of babybeardedbruce and I'm not even a Clinton fan.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Sam L
Date: 21 Oct 04 - 12:27 AM

I don't really care about Bill O'Reilly. It's like being shocked that Alice Cooper is really a regular guy. He's just a schtick.
   I'm not very familiar with him, just enough to see that he's one of those "conservative" media figures, like pidgeons--one leaves, another shows up. Like Alice Coopers, Marilyn Mansons--a recurring cartoon figure. I was raised liberal by arts and humanities professors but I think I could do the act. You act all tough-minded, by being thick-headed, and there's a market for it. Because it's soothing to substitute attitude for thought. Conservatives aren't very big self-doubters because the whole fun of being conservative is in saying to hell with that I'm a done sweet potato and I yam what I yam. You get to root for a team you imagine you're on while you're being cranked through a machine by larger forces you'll never understand.

There's less of a market for liberal pundits because the liberal fantasy is that we can transcend ourselves by knowing everything about everything and by being sensitive to every goddamn thing everywhere all the time. You aren't allowed to sleep. This gets tiring to people with human-sized lives, and also, sometimes boring, and not always entertaining--so the liberal media market is mostly in smug "we-know" humor and sophisticated and/or smart-sounding trivia. You get to say "actually" a lot, and repeat things you've heard as if they were moon-rocks of otherworldly wisdom bestowed on you from space. It's odd, but liberal racists are exactly like Bush's domestic programs--it doesn't matter what harm you do as long as you say the right thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Amos
Date: 21 Oct 04 - 01:14 AM

I saw Bill O'Reilly do an interview on the Daily Show on Comedy Central, and he was very personable and seemed intelligent and charming. I guess he was being contained by Jon Stewart's charismatic field or something.

Fred, that was a very enjoyable post.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Nerd
Date: 21 Oct 04 - 03:02 PM

My posts re Clinton were because of the erroneous posting that the Clinton impeachment was about SEX- IT WAS ABOUT PERJURY. But having been informed by those here that ARE TO BE OBEYED, I guess I have to go back and alter history to match the "TRUTH"

BB, it was about perjury...and he was acquitted for it. That's that. No perjury. Largely because the stuff he was asked about was immaterial, because it was about sex in a real-estate investigation.

Also, you must be lying above, because your post about Bill Clinton was the first one on the thread. There was no eroneous posting stating that the Clinton impeachment was about Sex.

Once again, the case against Clinton by Paula Jones was thrown out of court. It is you who is living in a different world, DougR. Here is the beginning of the article linked to by Brian:

Paula Jones verdict: insufficient evidence

The judge's rigorous standards were not met

It was not a ruling that anyone expected.

More than four years after Paula Jones filed her sexual harassment suit against President Bill Clinton, the federal judge Susan Wright Webber dismissed the case, saying that it did not meet the legal standard for sexual harassment.

As for the impeachment votes, they were:

* SENATE ACQUITS CLINTON *
55-45 "NOT GUILTY" VOTE ON PERJURY; 50-50 ON OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
(http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/impeach.htm)

In other words, according to the Senate, he did NOT commit perjury, and according to the courts, he did NOT commit sexual harrasment.

But you continue to remember it your way, DougR and BB.

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 21 Oct 04 - 04:44 PM

The comment was made that Oreilly only goes after the weak. Clearly, the person saying that has not watched much of Oreilly.    No one in the country was harder on Jeb Bush concerning the Rylya Wilson case. No one in the country has been more critical of George Bush on securing the borders.   He has gone toe to toe with Michael Moore, Al Franken, Ann Coutler, bill Maher, and Laura Inghram.   He went out of his way to be fair to Kerry on the Swift Boats.   He has been more than fair with Dan Rather.    These are not weak people.   The fact that both sides get angry with him only proves the point that he is fair- harsh but fair.   Tim Russert is the same.

About the weak and innocent- what other national reporter has covered the Rhyla Wilson case?

As with the Kobe Bryant accuser I think we should wait till the facts come out before making judgement. It may turn out she was telling the truth, but it also may turn out that she was only doing it for the money and the 1 million dollar aprtment in Manhattan she wanted.

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Amos
Date: 21 Oct 04 - 05:05 PM

Larry:

Good advice. BTW, he styles himself an "undecided".

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Oct 04 - 06:12 PM

Interesting post (20 Oct 04 - 08:18 AM ), Wolfgang. Especially since you're pointing fingers at others for something you do quite frequently yourself. How ironic.

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: DougR
Date: 21 Oct 04 - 06:42 PM

BB: No, you are not among the annoited Chosen ones. I'm not quite sure who they are myself. But if you expect most of the Mudcatter posters in the BS threads to respect your POV, then you will be sadly disappointed. The only POV respected on the Mudcat is the liberal one. No point in getting upset about it, that's just the way it is here. Funny, but until I started posting on the Mudcat five or six years ago, I REALLY thought that one of the admirable traits about liberals was that they DID respect the views of others.

Just 'taint so.

If someone posts an opinion that does not coincide with the liberal POV here, he/she is subject to ridicule, and sometimes worse.

You just have to accept that, and keep on posting.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Sam L
Date: 22 Oct 04 - 12:02 AM

I doubt there are Chosen Ones Doug, it's just mostly liberals, so it seems that way.

Thanks Amos, a little cartoon of my own, of liberals and conservatives, but it's just a first draft.

I'm not sure I caught the part where O'Reilly was harrassing someone. What power did he hold over this person? Maybe I should re-read it, but all I got was he denounced someone's work, then wanted to see it, or see more of it. That's not too different than if you denounce O'Reilly, but listen to his show. What's the alleged harrassment part?

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Amos
Date: 22 Oct 04 - 12:07 AM

DougR:

I don't know what you think the word "liberal" means, or what you think the "liberal POV is" or how there could only be one of them (?!) but where I come fromt he root concept of the term means respecting and granting freedom, or treating others as free.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Nerd
Date: 22 Oct 04 - 12:59 AM

DougR:

It has little to do with respecting a point of view. The only thing I don't respect is your getting the facts so blatantly wrong. Like "Paula Jones settled out of court" and "Clinton was convicted of perjury." As I showed above, both are untrue.

Perhaps not coincidentally, PIPA, a public affairs program at the University of Maryland, has just released a study confirming that President Bush's supporters tend to suppress or deny information that would tend to make their candidate look bad. So, even after the Duelfer report, most Bush supporters believe Iraq has WMD, that the Duelfer report showed that, that Iraq was giving significant support to Al-Qaeda, and that the 9/11 commission report showed that. They believe that most people in the world want Bush to be re-elected and that most people in the world support the invasion of iraq.

As Salon puts it:

Analyzing data from a series of nationwide polls, the report finds that a majority of Bush supporters believe things about the world that are objectively untrue, while the majority of Kerry supporters dwell in the reality-based community. For example, Bush backers largely think that the president and his policies are popular internationally. Seventy-five percent believe that Iraq was providing "substantial" aid to al-Qaida, and 63 percent say clear evidence of this has been found. That, of course, would be news even to Donald Rumsfeld, who earlier this month told the Council on Foreign Relations, "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."

Though its language is dispassionate, the report lays responsibility for this epidemic of ignorance at the White House's door. "So why are Bush supporters clinging so tightly to these beliefs in the face of repeated disconfirmations?" it asks. "Apparently one key reason is that they continue to hear the Bush administration confirming these beliefs."

Indeed, it says, "an overwhelming 82% [of Bush supporters] perceive the Bush administration as saying that Iraq had WMD (63%) or a major WMD program (19%). Only 16% of Bush supporters perceive the administration as saying that Iraq had some limited activities, but not an active program (15%) or had nothing (1%). The pattern on al Qaeda is similar. Seventy-five percent of Bush supporters think the Bush administration is currently saying Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda (56%) or even that it was directly involved in 9/11 (19%). Further, 55% of Bush supporters say it is their impression the Bush administration is currently saying the US has found clear evidence Saddam Hussein was working closely with al Qaeda (not saying clear evidence found: 37%)."

Looks like a pattern to me. I wonder what percent believe Clinton was convicted of perjury and Paula Jones settled out of court?

Subject: RE: BS: Bill O'Reilly--Shame on you!!
From: Sam L
Date: 22 Oct 04 - 09:25 PM

Well, that's informative, but I'm sure it's just liberal propaganda.

Too bad, because it would help me in my quest to understand how my fellow citizens support a president who to me seems a profoundly un-American leader, a disaster, and more disasters waiting to happen. I try to understand it, but I can't.