What is Digg?138 Comments
- yakimushi, on 10/12/2007, -8/+90Next thing you know he'll say that the Pres. can't be held accountable...
- lamjo, on 10/12/2007, -16/+91That is why Fox News is not real news, but rather, propaganda - you can't be confrontational with the dictator. Isn't that the same method that Saddam used? Isn't that the same method for interviewing the Saudi rulers and all the other dictators? Makes you wonder if Bill O'Reilly actually hears what comes out of his own mouth. When the history is written, O'Reilly is going down as just another right-wing propagandist who knelled before and catered to those in power. He's a coward.
- whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -8/+79by the laws he signed into office today, he can't be held accountable.
- tpodr, on 10/12/2007, -8/+43And I am sure Mr O'Reilly will take the same approach when there is a Democrat President.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+34Just like Fox's Chris Wallace did with Clinton when he interrupted him, talked over him and argued with him.
Ahh Fox, the network for those who can't afford Pravda. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+29Piss off then.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+29"Also, I think it’s important to look ahead rather than to look back. what good does it do to rehash WMDs? Does that do you any good?"
Well, for one Mister O'Reilly, it makes a public spectacle of the lies we've been told.
That logic is like shooting someone dead, and then saying "Don't send me to jail. What good'll that do 'em?" - SparQy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23Yes indeed. Don't be confrontational with your Boss. That goes without saying.
- felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22It's funny how watching O'Reilly now looks like you're watching a Stephen Colbert imitator.
Colbert has done such a good job satirizing him every night, that I'm amazed O'Reilly hasn't done something to change up his own formula. He comes off looking like a parody, until you realize there's no punch line. - jmzook, on 10/12/2007, -6/+24 Bill O'Reilly is a partisan hack who has no right to call himself a journalist. Just another example of what to expect from a network which some have correctly dubbed "Faux News".
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15And people for some reason like to listen to bubblegum pop music. That doesn't mean bubblegum pop music, or Fox News, is the best thing available. Those who scream the loudest aren't necessarily right.
- kencyber, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20Bill O'Reilly wouldn't know real journalism if it were a 300 pound gorilla and it picked him up and tossed him in the conpervitive dung heap. Our country was not founded by a bunch of "yes-men" cow-towing to their leaders every wishes and demands. The President serves the people, not the other way around.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14mir:
>I have to agree with the 2nd and 3rd posters, what interview did you watch? Wallace just sat there... Clinton was the one screaming and even went as far to poke Wallaces's leg while claiming he was a conservative hitman.
Clinton was "screaming?" Well one of us didn't watch the interview. Here's Wallace interrupting him repeatedly:
Clinton: OK, now let’s look at all the criticisms: Black Hawk down, Somalia. There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk down or was paying any attention to it or even knew Al Qaida was a growing concern in October of ‘93.
WALLACE: I understand, and I…
CLINTON: No, wait. No, wait. Don’t tell me this — you asked me why didn’t I do more to bin Laden. There was not a living soul. All the people who now criticize me wanted to leave the next day.
You brought this up, so you’ll get an answer, but you can’t…
WALLACE: I’m perfectly happy to.
CLINTON: All right, secondly…
WALLACE: Bin Laden says…
CLINTON: Bin Laden may have said…
WALLACE: … bin Laden says that it showed the weakness of the United States.
CLINTON: But it would’ve shown the weakness if we’d left right away, but he wasn’t involved in that. That’s just a bunch of bull. That was about Mohammed Adid, a Muslim warlord, murdering 22 Pakistani Muslim troops. We were all there on a humanitarian mission. We had no mission, none, to establish a certain kind of Somali government or to keep anybody out.
He was not a religious fanatic…
WALLACE: But, Mr. President…
CLINTON: … there was no Al Qaida…
WALLACE: … with respect, if I may, instead of going through ‘93 and…
CLINTON: No, no. You asked it. You brought it up. You brought it up. - Chewie67, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17There's actually a Journalistic Term for this:
PUSSY
As in: "You pussy, ask him why he's bent this country over and ***** us." - SecondGuesser, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Hate to burst your bubble, but O'Reilly isn't news. He doesn't report the news. He hosts a news analysis show, which he'll happily admit is rife with opinions.
- emanggid, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18
I always learned in skool to learn from the past. Otherwise, wouldn't we just keep rehashing concentration camps, ethnic cleansing, slavery, the Spanish inquisition, and mustaches and mullets??
If you think about it, what Bill said was really, really stupid. Stupid to the max. +1 - ByteGuerilla, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Back in the Motherland, we used to only have two TV channels! One was a phony news channel that reported nothing but lies and propaganda, and the other was a KGB agent telling us to switch back to the other channel.
The same is true in America, except the 'other' channel is many hundred of awful, awful TV programmes that give us no choice but to turn back to the other channel. I guess we could go outside, but the first channel assures me that crime rates are too high for it to be safe. Also, I might miss an advert that will tell me about something I need to buy to get laid more often... like beer. - smcavoy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@mrfoos
if you consider asking loaded questions respectful then yes, that interview was very respectful. - chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"every interview with the president is finite"
Wow!! Awesome observation, Bill. - vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12To be fair... The Nazis dressed better, spoke their native language with correct grammar, and tended to not be total buffoons with running the government.
- timla, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Expect it, Hell yes. But is fox going todo it, Hell no.
If fox asked the same type of questions of Bush that they did of clinton I would say they were right todo so. But they will not, Fox softballs bush, O'Reilly so much as admitted it.
I my Opinion, they would not have been so kind if clinton had come on there right after Monica. Fox is not Fair, Fox is not Balanced. Fox is Propaganda - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Well, obviously he's not going to go on a news show where he's gonna get asked really hard questions. Is O'Reilly's view here really suprising? There's a reason Bush didnt go on 60 minutes or some other left-slanted show.
- Memitim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6mirunit has a point; we should definitely wait until Americans are being interred in camps indefinitely and they no longer possess the freedom to organize and stand up to the devolution of all that we hold dear. It is kind of silly to try and make a difference early on and prevent a disaster rather than trying to fix it after many lives have been destroyed. Thank you, mirunit, for showing me the error of my ways.
- Burly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Explain how it is taken out of context. I'm failing to understand your opinion.
- ultraelite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"Also, I think it’s important to look ahead rather than to look back. what good does it do to rehash WMDs? Does that do you any good?"
Yeah its not like were still fighting in Iraq or anything - SimonKay, on 10/12/2007, -16/+22I can't believe people fall for this crap!
O'Reily:
"He does get a fair shake here but he also gets tough questions, as everybody does."
AND THEN HE SAYS:
"I decided to concentrate on the conflicts — Iraq, Iran, North Korea and terror — rather than on domestic issues."
"Also, I think it’s important to look ahead rather than to look back. what good does it do to rehash WMDs? Does that do you any good?" - norris, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@SparQy
And that's what's wrong with this country. We should be his boss. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7and nazi leaders at least had the balls to go through with military service.
- mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I think it is just respect for the office, If it were a liberal president I would expect the same. Is it ok to ask tough questions, yeah, but to harass, no.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Second:
>I don't know how you could have watched the Wallace-Clinton interview and seen Wallace as out of bounds. Please read the transcript and tell me one question he asked Clinton that was over the line.
Third question in, loaded question. He prefaced a wildly and obscenely loaded question with "all due respect..." It's was so transparent even he was nervous that Clinton called him on it. - dime, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Well.. he CANNOT be held accountable, he's the President."
Nixon said the same thing... didn't turn out too good for him, either. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Considering I can't go to an appearance by the president and peacefully protest in the vicinity I'd say that I've been inconvenienced. Not so much destroyed my life (yet) but certainly reduced my liberties.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8The Pres can't be held accountable. I mean, what good is it to rehash the fact that there were no wmds? We found out they weren't real so long ago! Remember, we don't want another 9/11. It's not like 9/11 happened before we found out there were no WMDs! *obvious sarcasm*
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@bonesaw
Ad hominem attacks do nothing to help your argument but rather crush it. I was beginning to agree with you until you let your political bias get in the way. - jmzook, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Maybe I'm being too hard on old Bill. After all, he is only one of the many liberal and conservative partisan hacks on tv.
- theabsconder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5There are fewer cops patroling in my home town because half of the force is in Iraq fighting Bush's Iraq war.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0309.wallace-wells.html
"The war in Iraq, fought largely without allies, has required the call-up of huge numbers of reserves, many of whom are cops. And instead of using the men in blue as eyes and ears on the domestic war on terrorism, the administration has, in effect, used them as glorified security guards." - ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Not for the lack of trying.
Do a google search on "Net Neutrality" and "FCC fines" - p0und, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5what?
- Dustyb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Well really you can't get into the presidents face, and you SHOULD'nt be disrepsectful, but you can, thats what makes our country so great. But man alive, I cannot stand this guy. He's an idiot by new proportions.
- ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4There is a solution. Look up Joseph Biden's "Plan for Iraq."
It's not that Democrats don't have a solution, it's that none of the news channels has the balls to cover the solution. Even CNN says, "Hey, have you heard of General So-and-So's solution?" and everyone responds with, "Say what?" - TheZorch, on 10/12/2007, -29/+33@JohnCrichton get your Republican loving Fascist ass off Digg! Anyone who supports George W. Bush in my opinion is an Enemy to Democracy and our American way of life.
Bill Orally can go to hell! - DontSayFanboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4SecondGuesser:
That's a reasonable question, and I'll digg you up for it.
One way that Bush has directly affected my life is due to the record spending that his administration is responsible for. I am faced with an enormous taxpayer burden. The calculated taxpayer cost of the war currently is 1 trillion dollars and climbing. Imagine the positive effect that money could have on you and your children. Instead it's being channeled into a third world country that I'm sure you would agree does not affect you directly and personally.
I could come up with more, but that's a pretty big one. - uberchaoslord, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6No one expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our primary weapon is surprise! Surprise and Fear! Our chief weapons are surprise and fear... and an almost fanatical devotion to the president!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@cpuenvy
Who to the what now? Please speak in complete thoughts that are relevant to the discussion.
Also, assuming I'm a liberal because I disagree with your argument is just as flawed. - smcavoy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6what's the point of having an interview where hard questions are asked but the answers are ***** talking points? If the question is not answered well enough or even at all... you either move on and waste the viewers time or you press the issue.
- Memitim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"But of course most of you nut case libs want to put your Dicks between your legs and just give up and that isn't a solution, that is just what the terrorists want us to do."
I have to admit that whenever I see some ignorant ***** like this it makes me think about trying to classify myself as a "lib" just on the off chance that these bulletin board tough guys would actually grow enough nut to say this sort of ***** to my face. But seeing as how I view all of you partisan ass lickers as the lowest form of scum in the political parade, I just can't bring myself to do so.
I did my time in the military when we weren't viewed as heroes but rather insulted and annoyed by the locals to the point that we would tell people that we were some other sort of profession in conversation just so we didn't have to listen to that ***** or throw down when trying to enjoy a cold beer. Your pathetic sniveling doesn't hold a candle to what I had to put up with before everyone became ***** and started hiding behind Uncle Sam's skirt, which would explain why you're more than happy to throw away the lives of soldiers just so you don't have to feel like you didn't, "put your Dicks between your legs," even though you don't have ***** to do with any of the actual fighting and am far more likely to die at the hand of an American than a terrorist. Still, I'd be glad to throw you a beating any time to make you feel more manly since violence is apparently what you consider to be the solution, even though that type of violence and the personal attacks that we are throwing at one another rather than cooperating to devise real solutions are really, "just what the terrorists want us to do." - GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3When you reduce taxes without reducing spending, it is NOT A TAX CUT. It is a TAX DEFERMENT! No two ways about it.
- GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ByteGuerilla
LOL! That is the funniest thing I've read all week. I wish I could hit that + button a couple more times.
Cheers, - DontSayFanboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"The Bush admin cut taxes"
Right, and created the largest deficit in the history of the country. Do you honestly think we'll be able to pay for all of his expenditures with more tax cuts? He has well and truly ***** this country, and you and I will be paying for it for decades to come. Even (er, especially) republicans are saying this. - jambox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5OK well I'm not from The World's Most Powerful Country, so all you Bush apologists can't just write off my opinions "beause I'm a left wing douche bag/ ass bandit/ dweeb and I would say that"
Let's get this straight - Bush cheated to get into office, then exploited a weak and partisan media, exploited the world tragedy that was 9/11, lied about WMD, politicised the US intelligence services, caused the deaths of 650,000 (and counting) Iraqis, crippled the US economy, called up vast numbers of young Americans to be brutalised in an unwinnable war, sold Iraq to Halliburton, "forgot" to send any aid to New Orleans and last and probably least, can't even be bothered to speak English or concentrate on a televised conversation.
Trust me when I say this - EVERY SINGLE PERSON OUTSIDE THE US WISHES THIS GUY WOULD END UP IN PRISON. -
Show 51 - 100 of 137 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is