What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history – the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
383 Comments
- Carbito, on 10/12/2007, -30/+301Is O'Reilly serious? Its like he is trying to do a bad Stephen Colbert impression...
I find it deeply concerning that there really are millions of people in the US who are just as ignorant as Bill O'Reilly, is it really that hard to read a newspaper once in a while? - truspector, on 10/12/2007, -39/+291Fox new is about as fair and balanced as Hitler at a bar mitzvah.
- lordjpg, on 10/12/2007, -19/+257@BullyJack
Ratings on tv.com
Colbert: Show: The Colbert Report
Popularity Rank: 620 of 15,916
Ratings Rank: 112 of 15,916
Show: The O'Reilly Factor
Popularity Rank: 3,912 of 15,916
Ratings Rank: 4,292 of 15,916
..what is your point again? - SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -15/+235"Colbert isn't a news show."
No sensible person believes that O'Reillys show is either. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -38/+247I wouldn't mind if the american who died is Bill O'reilly.
- stylerm, on 10/12/2007, -23/+128It may become difficult for colbert to keep his show with all this competition from established new-conedians (neo-con + comedian).
- xenoputtss, on 10/12/2007, -21/+119lol. BullyJack said "News Show"
LOL - the_atomic_ned, on 10/12/2007, -12/+106O'Reilly is a "narcissist enthralled in his own overblown ego, projecting his own petty insecurities onto the world around him, inventing false enemies for the sole purpose of bolstering his sense of self importance. An itty bitty Nixon minus the relevance or a hint of vision."
I know Stephen Colbert is supposed to be a joke... But damn he hit the nail on the head with that one. - melvs, on 10/12/2007, -8/+98The man is an idiot, plain and simple. I will watch him late nights simply for the comic relief he provides. My favorite episode was the one where he brought in 2 people who were completely against each other, and it ended with both of them agreeing and calling him an idiot.
- SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -15/+98And this is the type of person from whom millions of Americans get their propagan... oops I mean news. Sure does go a long way towards explaining quite a few things.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+91So... when *DID* you stop beating your wife?
On a more serious note: it is very important that Americans die; if they lived forever, could you imagine the mess we'd be in. - Ninjab3ar, on 10/12/2007, -21/+102BILL ORILEY HAS AN ACCOUNT ON DIGG!!!
his name is BullyJack. - GrendelT, on 10/12/2007, -6/+86I consider myself a conservative (I live in Texas for Pete's sake!), but I agree that wire-tapping at will goes against the "checks and balances" system we have in place. I think a judge's order SHOULD be required before wiretapping. At least pretend that it's warranted and not stepping on civil rights.
Suppose these NSA wiretaps went on. Now, fast foreward 30, 40, 50, 100 years down the road. When one party is in control, what's to stop them from wiretapping the opposition? Oh, because this is only during the "war on terror"? When will that end? Never, you say? Ok, so you've just granted the gov't of our future a blank check to "monitor traffic".
This is my reason for not supporting the NSA wiretaps - there's nothing to stop it from flowing over into a tool of control. - NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -7/+83@BullyJack -
You're a comedic dwarf. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+76@whiskeymb:
Actually, The O'Reilly Factor isn't a news show either. It is an editorial/opinion show. - pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -5/+61i don't understand his and his guests beef with the aclu. i guess civil liberties are something to fight against, not for.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+53Requesting video of this.
- ldhertert, on 10/12/2007, -2/+42I dugg you up for your exceptional example of irony.
- halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -4/+44Everyone, please just ignore BullyJack. He's one of those poor Conservative souls filled with raw, unmitigated hatred of anyone who disagrees with them. He's lashing out because one of his icons is being attacked, and anyone who disagrees with him will be instantly labeled as a "liberal." Once that label is applied, BullyJack will begin attacking not the person or their comment, but his stereotype of a "liberal."
Questioning the accuracy of O'Reilly's original statements would, in BullyJack's mind, constitute heresy.
Remember, that many extremists, Liberal and Conservative alike, threat their leaders with a reverence akin to that shown prophets or, in the case of a devout Catholic, the Pope.
Following a charismatic leader or figurehead allows a person to avoid thinking. It's just plain easier to let someone else think for you and tell you what to believe. One of the most amusing things about this is the way Left wing extremists will debate Right Wing Extremists. Each member of the debate thinks they are thinking on their own, while their opponent is mindlessly spewing talking points.
The irony of course is that both extremists are merely parroting the bias and talking points given them by their respective leaders. - Strider817, on 10/12/2007, -9/+47Wow, apparently the ACLU is always on the side of it's enemies. Apparently it's also still an insult to associate people with communism.
Perhaps they should say it like it is.... ACLU is for the the rights of the average citizen. - GraceMolloy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+40I don't have a problem with wiretapping.
I have a problem with them not having a warrant before they do it. - whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+39Ok, I don't understand why this is controversial. It's clearly in the constitution that warrentless wiretaps are illegal. she said that they are illegal. how can her ruling be considered wrong?! it's her job to look at the facts (the constitution) and say whether or not it is legal or not. it's clearly illegal per the constitution, so why is she wrong!?
I love Bill's attack... "does she want americans to die?". it is scary that people think like Bill. he brainwashes millions of americans every night.
but no doubt, the best part... he even interupts people who AGREE with him. He's a bully even to those people who SUPPORT him!!! lol... Bill, you're an idiot. - netjd, on 10/12/2007, -8/+42@4Wheel:
Quote"Liberals try so very hard to convince the majority of people that they are mentally superior."
Liberals try hard to prove thier ideas may be better for the country, or in your words 'superior', but elitist Neo-Cons act and believe that they are superior. - pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -8/+41the scary thing is, i wonder how many people agree with him. do people watch him like they watch guests on jerry springer? or do they watch him for his "insights"? i loved jon stewarts rebuttal when o'reilly said stewart is adding insult to injury "but, but.. you add injury". people like him are really bad for our country and the world in general.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+32@SyDIGG:
The part called the Amendment IV. Wiretapping is considered a form of search.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." - Ninjab3ar, on 10/12/2007, -14/+45in other words, he's a republican.
- rzurad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+31From Wikipedia article about Bill O'Reilly:
"O'Reilly has requested that no photographs of his home or family be made public — citing a desire to protect his family's privacy and security."
So he's concerned about his family's privacy and security, but an illegal NSA wiretap is fine? The man seems to have a twisted definition of privacy and security. - medieval, on 10/12/2007, -0/+29@VTmruhlin:
no, the ACLU wanted to stop government SPONSORSHIP of the Boy Scouts and PREFERENTIAL access to public facilities. They merely wanted the Boy Scouts to be treated exactly like other private organizations, not to ban them from public land. - TheNoot, on 10/12/2007, -6/+32Ahh yes! Reason #514863 on the list of "Why Bill O'Reilly is completely insane"
- Daiken, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28Okay, so it's either death or lose our rights and freedoms... What an ignorant statement. Every time you lose your rights, the terrorists win. Every time you lose your freedom, the terrorists win. Every moment of your life where you are scared a terrorist is going to come and kill you, so you stop living your normal life, the terrorists win. Every time you support an unjust war on another nation, the terrorists win.
Every time you watch Bill O'Reilly for "news", the terrorists win. - tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28Ummm, you didn't stop any plot. The UK did.
- whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -6/+31"completly ***** insane" is what I think you meant.
- TheNoot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27The NSA was placing illegal wiretaps in the UK and all across Europe?
- garfvader, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25The counterpoint is that sort of thinking is the first step that leads towards a police state.
"If you're not doing anything illegal, you don't have anything to worry about."
That's not how the rights of citizens should be treated. I shouldn't expect the government to be watching me at all times and feel good about it just because I'm not doing anything illegal. If I'm not doing anything illegal, I shouldn't be watched or wiretapped in the first place.
And please note that perhaps the strongest objection to the NSA's wiretapping policy is that it's warrantless. It's bypassing FISA which is designed to permit legal wiretapping through obtaining a warrant. The government has stated that it needs to be able to wiretap quickly and doesn't have time to obtain warrants. The strange thing is FISA actually permits this as long as a warrant is obtained within a certain time period after the wiretapping. - bolapara, on 10/12/2007, -5/+30O'Reilly is a nut-job. I can't believe anyone takes him seriously.
He doesn't argue facts, he doesn't try and use intelligent points, he just says insanely stupid things like "Do you want Americans to die?" and hopes that other morons completely abandon intelligent debate and think he is making a point. - CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -9/+34You do all realize that this is exactly why he has a show? He is supposed to get people all pissed off, and then they watch his show to see what he'll say next.
He is a complete ***** closed-minded idiot with intelligence level that barely rivals a 4th grader. No matter what the argument is, you will not be able to spill facts to him because he doesn't listen and has no desire to become knowledgable about anything. - dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28Wow, I've never seen more republican circle-jerking in my life. No wonder O'Reilly's ratings have been slipping.
- sjm20k, on 10/12/2007, -7/+30Im sure you'd be singing a different tune if you got harassed by an ***** cop in a bad mood one day and the ACLU were the only ones willing to help you defend yourself in court for free. But I guess cops are always right, so is the president, and so is Bill O'Riley, right BullyJack.
God, you're dumb. - garfvader, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27Obviously, fighting for civil liberties somehow equates to a lack of patriotism and a desire for the terrorists to win. Oh, and then the bodies in the street thing.
That whole video clip is mind boggling. - Promantarius, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24"Nice to see comments being dugg and dugg down on their merit and not their personal view. /sarcasm/"
It's a flawed system, some people believe voting should be restricted to constructive comments getting 'diggs' and any comments which are not constructive getting 'diggs' removed. Then there's another group of people which believe that you should 'digg' if you agree and 'digg down' if you disagree.
Simple fact is, using the second system you get a better overview of the general opinion of digg users, and have less comments per article (since you can simply vote to agree with someone instead of replying to agree), so people generally go with that. Having a more advanced voting system would be nice, but it'd take away from the simplicity and the whole 'digg' and 'digg down' thing would still remain dominant.
In other words, just deal with it. - garfvader, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Benjamin Franklin - putamare, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20Nobody is asking to impede the process of a valid investigation by outlawing wiretaps; intelligent people just want a warrant, some oversight, due process, to make the wiretaps legal. Only a fascist fool would have it otherwise.
- whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21@SyDIGG:
4th amendment.... go read it. - shikaga, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21Wow, you really don't understand how digg works do you?
Just because you submit a story, doesn't mean you agree with the opinions included the story. - DJNephilim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. - dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23Ironically, Bill O'Reilly makes me wish that it were illegal for some people to talk.
- eexlebots, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19The problem is wiretapping without a warrant, which isn't that hard to get in the first place.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18@repins:
I suggest you read the rest of the constitution and then explain how the federal government can make any law against abortion, stem cell research, etc when they are "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Start with Article 2 section 8, which lists the scope of the Legislative branch. - truthRises, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23I wish Billy would come say stuff like that here...
And see how fast his rhetorical nonsense gets not only dugg down to the upper mantle, but also gets a serious logical smackdown.
Turn your mic off indeed. - dmann, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19I believe the term youre looking for in reference to O'reilly is liar, fraud, person who makes his facts up on the fly. RE: Him telling Jay Leno that Tommy Chong deserved prison because of his 17 past convictions for drug offenses, when chong has NEVER, prior to his prison term for chong bongs, been imprisoned. Him saying the "Paris Business Review, which he claimed to have in front of him said his boycott of france had cost the country 4 billion dollars, when in fact, there IS NO SUCH MAGAZINE, and no boycott cost the country any billion dollars. The FACT is... bill o reilly is an ACTOR... he isnt a news man, at all. His show is less factual that Colbert or Stewart. It's theatre, just like Stewart said of crossfire.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 383 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is