• bloc said on Aug 22, 2007....

  Here is a great clip that shows how O'reilly is not interested an an open and honest discussion. This colonel is making a very very important point, that we lose the ability to criticize others when we lose the moral high ground. She didn't say that it was "our fault" as bill suggests and bill knows this. His goal is to prevent an honest and open discussion of the complexities of the world.
  
  
  
  

  
  
  

• bloc said on Aug 22, 2007....

  This audio clip from his radio show is priceless. He chastises a caller and the caller is right! He then goes on to lecture his audience that they need to know what they are talking about and have their facts right when they call his show. He's the one with the mistaken facts!!!!
  
  
  More importantly, if you listen to him closely you'll notice that at one point he's making shit up when he is quoting hearing. He makes up an exchange between rice and pelosi that never happened! It's the part where is says "boxer goes in and says" then "and then rice came back and said ...". 
  
  
  
  

• labeledandBranded said on Aug 22, 2007....

  I am watching this and am in disgust- I cant stand this guy- from his suits to his receding hairline- Who continues to let this guy give a bad name to Journalism and its integrity. You are very right- HE HAS NONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

• bloc said on Aug 22, 2007....

  Here is another beauty. His cohost is right, here would not be a public transcript that we the people could read and know if lies were told. Not only is he lying, but it shows, again, that he isn't interested in honest and open discussions of issues.
  
  

• bloc said on Aug 22, 2007....

  Clearly Geraldo wants "ANARCHY". LOL, yeah right. Again, bill o has no interest in an honest discussion. Not only that, Geraldo is right and Bill O is wrong with regards to the laws and deportation. One may argue that the laws should be differently, and i'll agree, but bill is wrong and geraldo is right.
  
  
  
  

• mobil said on Aug 22, 2007....

  This is laughable bloc, it really is and it shows YOUR bias not O'reily's in the first clip he was talking about the American people, not the US Government. A twisting of words yes, but by the guy you brought out to talk about O'reily's bias. Holy shit bloc. I still boycott France, I have for thirty years. The report, The Paris business review or whatever. WHAT? Your guy couldn't find it or O'reily inadvertenly said the wrong publication? I don't know,. Where's the beef man?
   
  The second clip, he asked this left wing woman a question and she would NOT answer it. She instead (like you my friend) attacks the United States. I saw this show myself. She's a flaming left wing nut bloc and she wouldn't discuss this issue he brought up.
   
  Can't you see that man? Hear it? What are we working with different visual and sound equipment here? This is what you bring as proof?
   
  This is your integrity Sir? This is what you march out as proof? C'mon, it's only sad. Ok, let me say this, you're a young man and as such I suppose you have every right to be thinking this way. Lets talk again when your forty, only a fool would continue to think like this when he is forty, fair enough?
   
  I didn't listen to your audio clip lol. I know you believe in this stuff, God knows you try to get your point across. I am not laughing or making fun of you. Honest, I think you are a fine young man, misguided, but heartfelt.
   
  We'll talk later, in about fifteen years..........thanks bloc

• bloc said on Aug 22, 2007....

  "Your guy couldn't find it or O'reily inadvertenly said the wrong publication? I don't know,. Where's the beef man?"
  
  This shows that you don't really care. There is no paris business review and no article that says that france lost billions. Big O made it up which is about as clear of a lie as you can get.
  
  
  As for the second clip, her point is valid and important. How can we condemn Iran for violating the geneva conventions while at the same time arguing that our own country doesn't have to follow the geneva conventions? That's integrity, which Bill O lacks!
  
  
  Obviously you are content to remain ignorant.

• lioneljay said on Aug 22, 2007....

  Bloc, it's a public service to reveal O'Reily for the lying windbag that he is. It's a little embarrassing to be a citizen of the same country as he. Every time I watch him I'm reminded of the smarmy bully in American Graffiti who gets Richard Dreyfus's character to help his gang pull of a petty robbery.

• silverwhisper said on Aug 22, 2007....

  don't mind me, just marking so i can view the clips later.
  
  ed

• LtCmdrWorf1 said on Aug 22, 2007....

  Wow, what a liar.  I never much cared for Bill o this must be why, what prick.  Peace and Long Life
  
  Love Worf
  

• mobil said on Aug 22, 2007....

  BTW, there is a Paris Business Review and there was an article in that publication about France losing Billions of dollars to the boycott. It was a joke article though.
   
  See ! we must not react in hast.

• LtCmdrWorf1 said on Aug 22, 2007....

  Mobil,
  
  Taking satire as fact is a dangerous thing.  I expect more from people who claim that they are trying to get to the truth.  Furthermore, you don't ue satire to try and discredit people; I don't care how much you don't like, or agree with them.  Peace and long LIfe
  
  Love Worf
  

• bloc said on Aug 22, 2007....

  we're having the same conversation in two places. Let's keep the parts about the paris business review in this post. Are you referring to the paris business review website? I'm guessing that you are and I hate to inform you of this, but that satire site was made AFTER bill O made that claim as a joke about his lying ways. There was no such site when he made that claim!

• mobil said on Aug 22, 2007....

  Hello Lefttenant, how dangerous was it? As bloc said a few days ago, it's near impossible to tell when someone is being humerous in writing. Let's not make more of it than meets the eye Sir !

• bloc said on Aug 22, 2007....

  tag, just want to make sure you see my comment above your last comment :)

• mobil said on Aug 22, 2007....

  ok, but I left my last comment on the other post.

• ALIENated said on Aug 22, 2007....

  bloc, I have been trying hard to ignore you, so I will make this brief. Find a 
  new topic. Everyone, even conservatives, agree on this one. BO is a turkey.
  Even if he is right, he is so pompus and arrogant, it is difficult to listen to him.
  I have to admit, I have never watched him for more than a few minutes, so
  I really do not know where he stands and whether he is right or wrong most
  of the time. I guess I have to admit that I have mostly been listening to a
  few minutes of Glenn Beck in the morning and Mark Levin in the evening (on
  my trip to and from work). Now, I can tell you, those two know what they
  are talking about. They are busy pointing out the pompus and arrogant
  liberal Democrats instead of being pompus and arrogant themselves. Of 
  course I would listen to BO instead of some liberal twit like Keith Olbermann
  anytime. Sorry, I have trouble being brief. Cheers.
  

• kelly said on Aug 23, 2007....

  "This audio clip from his radio show is priceless. He chastises a caller and the caller is right! He then goes on to lecture his audience that they need to know what they are talking about and have their facts right when they call his show. He's the one with the mistaken facts!!!!"
  
  
  Jeez, even in a low grade internet copy of that clip you can hear that Bill completely missed what she said.
  
  
  By the way, alien, we'll find a new topic when you find a new topic.  I think that Bill might just in fact be the perfect representative for the Republic party.

• ALIENated said on Aug 23, 2007....

  No thanks. The Democrats are already represented by an ass (or several of them). 
  We will stick with the elephant.
  

• lioneljay said on Aug 23, 2007....

  Alien, your most recent comment reminds me of a bumper sticker that I've heard about. It reads, "Of course it hurts. You're being screwed by an elephant."

• bewaresmoothtalkers said on Aug 23, 2007....

  Bloc.....I said I wasn't going to bother with you any more, but then I see this post & out of curioisty opened it to see what rant you were on. If you were honest, you would admit that you or any of your anti-O'reilly crowd don't watch him on a regular basis. I often hear him make corrections about things he has said. His show has the top ratings in cable of any show of his type.
  Mobil is right; not only are you immature, but I think you get your talking points from other left wing web sights & you parriot them on your post. Sorry to have wasted your time. I'm sure all your liberal, Anti-Bush, Anti-O'reilly & Anti-conservative readers think your the best thing since Ice Cream!!    

• lioneljay said on Aug 23, 2007....

  BST, I actually do force myself to watch O'Reilly occasionally. And while I sometimes need an emetic afterwards, I have yet to see him retract any of the falsehoods that he has spewed.

• bewaresmoothtalkers said on Aug 23, 2007....

  LJ......well then you either don't watch it that often or you just didn't hear him say them. I'll tell you a little secret, I watch him & Fox for two reasons. The first is: Fox gives a far more balanced look at the news then any of the other channels. The second is: O'Reilly is not a News show but as he often says he gives his Opinion, & as you yourself pointed out. You force yourself to watch his show, how can you claim to be impartial with that mind set. I make a real effort to catch his e-mails at the end of each broadcast, You would be surprised how two viewers watching the exact same show can come up with totally opposite viewpoints. You think maybe it's because they went into the show with a predetermined mind set? Let me ask you a real simple question: Who is your favorite Conservative?

• lioneljay said on Aug 23, 2007....

  BST, my favorite conservative politician was Barry Goldwater. Presently, I like Andrew Sullivan's commentary.

• bewaresmoothtalkers said on Aug 23, 2007....

  LJ.....Straight question; Do you favor the Goldwater from his younger years or just his latter years after he lost his bid for president? I partially agree with you on Sullivan, the only thing is; I would call him a "Blue Dog democrat", with an english accent.

• lioneljay said on Aug 23, 2007....

  BST, I admired Goldwater during his run for President. As for Sullivan, it's hard for me to see him as anything other than a conservative, particularly seeing as how his most recent book was a plea to return conservatism to its philosophical roots.

• bloc said on Aug 23, 2007....

  @bst
  giving ones opinion does not justify lying and a lack of integrity. Did you even watch and listen to the o'reilly clips in this post?
  
  
  Btw, I'm still waiting on your review of sicko. Wasn't that bet a result of O'reilly lying?

• mobil said on Aug 23, 2007....

  What did you admire about Goldwater during his bid for President LJ? Most of his followers went on to support the greatest President of our time  Ronald Regan, did you admire Regan as well?

• mobil said on Aug 23, 2007....

  Morning bloc, no word from Bill's staff yet.

• lioneljay said on Aug 23, 2007....

  Mobil, I admired that Goldwater held to solid conservative beliefs. He was smart, worked hard, and fought for his beliefs. I did not admire Reagan at all because it was clear to me that he was a figurehead leader who did relatively little of his own thinking. Further, his stubborn insistence on experimenting with trickle-down economic policy exacerbated a trend of a widening gap between the poor and the rich that had begun to worsen in the early 1970s. Reagan adopted an unthinking attitude against taxes without a correspondingly hard line on expenditures that plagues us even now. 

• mobil said on Aug 23, 2007....

  Damn LJ, it's too easy to take one side of complicated issues and hold it up to the light of day. Yes, Regan cut taxes and began the longest span of prosperity in United States history........that's how I see it.
   
  Yes, Regan had huge deficet spending, but why? Do you know why LJ? He also ended the cold war LJ, why don't you ever mention that? AND, this lopsided thinking that Regan wasn't a free thinker is complete nonsense, something to make folks like you feel better. Even if he wasn't (and he was) then give him credit for putting good people close to himself.
   
  The widening of the gap between the rich and the poor? How many places can we point our fingers at for this? But you point your finger at Regan?
   
  So, let's look at Goldwater, you like him because he held to solid conservative beliefs.........What? Regan didn't do that?  You liked Goldwater because he was smart.........BUT, Regan who actually became Gov. of Calif and President, ended the cold war, began the longest running era of prosperity in history. he wasn't smart? Regan just had good people? And lastly, you like Barry Goldwater for his beliefs, but NOT Regan for his conservative beliefs?
   
  It appears you like Goldwater because he didn't become President?

• bloc said on Aug 23, 2007....

  my biggest problem with reagan was his participation in blacklists. I believe to be fundamentally unamerican and undemocratic to ruin people's lives because of their political views.

• bloc said on Aug 23, 2007....

  another interesting side note, Reagan supported Saddam and the Taliban. Why doesn't he ever get criticized for that?

• mobil said on Aug 23, 2007....

  Have you read about Regan and what was going on in the film industry during that time bloc? Or are you just mimicing what you heard?
   
  Regan was actually on our (my) side during that time and it was Regan who saved people's careers, not ruined them. C'mon, you're going to make it so I have absolutly no respect for you bloc if you keep this shit up.
   
  You have a number of audio and video clips above, you take a man who has thousands and thousands of hours of air time, radio and televison and pull little one minute clips out of those thousands of hours and try to paint a picture with a hairless brush.
   
  I believe that to be fundamentally unfair and when done as you and the organizagions providing these clips are doing, it's undemocratic and, unfair and an effort to slander someone's efforts and ruin their life by misrepresenting his overall message and that because you don't like what he is saying overall.
   
   
   
   
   
   

• lioneljay said on Aug 23, 2007....

  Mobil, if O'Reilly has an overall message, he's ruining his own credibility by lying in order to communicate it.

• mobil said on Aug 23, 2007....

  Ok LJ, we will just have to disagree about that.

• bloc said on Aug 23, 2007....

  "and it was Regan who saved people's careers"
  
  Here is a quote from Reagan, "I was all for kicking Communists out of Hollywood,". He tried to help some people he believed were falsely accused, but he still promoted the idea of ruining peoples lives because of their political beliefs. Again, that is fundamentally unamerican and undemocratic.

• mobil said on Aug 23, 2007....

  I am outta here bloc, you are one hard headed young man. There is Regan's qoute in black and white. The rest; who in the hell knows who said the rest of that statement?

  It seems others have given up trying to have reasonable conversations with you. I have quit you in the past for these same reasons. I guess I am a glutton for punishment haha..................

  Here's a suggestion, read, quit using these sources you've used and go to the library, get some good books and read, do lots of reading bloc.

  Maybe we can talk again after you become informed........I can't take it anymore !

• bloc said on Aug 23, 2007....

  are you saying that reagan wasn't for kicking communists out of hollywood? Surely you aren't which means that he was for ruining peoples lives because of their political views. 
  
  
  If you want to leave because you can't point out any inaccuracies in my statements about Reagan then go right ahead. 

• bewaresmoothtalkers said on Aug 23, 2007....

  Bloc......Bravo!! You've done it again, This time it's Mobil that sees thru your bravado. When are you actually going to show those of us that don't find your regurgitation of other peoples blogs all that great. As Mobil said, try reading some material yourself & make your own comments. Otherwise the only people you'll be commenting with, is the ones that take what ever you say as gospel. Keep up the hard work, I know your converting all kinds of people to your line of thinking !! Oh by the way, make sure you applaude that Newspaper in the Northwest for not running the pictures of those two men that the FBI wanted to talk to about they're strange behavior on the Ferry boats. That would surely be an invasion of their privacy. Chalk another one up for yourside !! 

• bloc said on Aug 23, 2007....

  what i find most interesting is that you guys simply can't respond to the facts of the matter. It's all bluster and I think anyone reading this post, that watches those clips, or that reads what Reagan said and did, will find that I've told the truth. Oddly, you guys haven't responded to any of that in a substantial fashion. Let me make a very clear example
  
  
  Here is what mobil said:
  "Regan was actually on our (my) side during that time and it was Regan who saved people's careers, not ruined them."
  
  

  Here is what I quoted, and Reagan said:

  "I was all for kicking Communists out of Hollywood"
  
  
  This is a clear contradiction to what mobil claimed and while he was claiming it he was insulting me. What then was mobil's response to this simple fact? More insults towards me and no substance.

• travelr712 said on Aug 23, 2007....

  i usually find that fundamentalist conservatives either shut a person down that doesn't agree with their beliefs when they have the situational leverage, such as b.o. had in these clips (turn their mike off, they don't have permission to speak anymore!) - or hurl insults about a person's character and then leave. i was particularly intrigued by the b.o. comment about his co host - "what can we do to her?" he was looking for a way to punish her for disagreeing with him!
  
  conservatives ALWAYS believe that they are right until proven wrong, and even then it must've been someone else's fault (they got faulty information and the like).
  
  liberals will stick to their beliefs until shown they are wrong and then change them, and leave everyone else to believe what they want. hmm, kinda the definition of liberal, isn't it?
  
  personally, i think the best government is when there is a balance between the two, with neither having too much power and influence in any area. sure it takes longer to get things done, but that eliminates rash behavior.
  
  oh, and keep in mind that clinton supported saddam also. he may have made a few public speeches against saddam, but in madaline albright's book, she tells of the state department people sitting in a nervous saddam's office and assuring him it was just political, that there was no substance to it, and he had nothing to worry about. they all had their fingers in the pie trying to satisfy america's gluttony for middle eastern oil.
  

• ALIENated said on Aug 23, 2007....

  How is kicking communists out of Hollywood a bad thing? What am I missing?

• travelr712 said on Aug 24, 2007....

  because alienated, our country was founded on and based on religious and political freedom. anyone can believe anything they want and adhere to any political system they wish, and if a majority votes to follow that political ideal, that becomes the new system. conservatives always want to side step the laws of our country and intents of the constitution in order to create a society that they decide is 'best for the country'. kinda makes conservatives like communists in practice, doesn't it?

• bewaresmoothtalkers said on Aug 24, 2007....

  T712.......Actually if you check history, you'll find Liberals are more likely to be aligned with Communist or as some say-(socialist). I think maybe you would agree that Hollywood was & still is the biggest propaganda tool in this country. If as most people point out that Joe Mccarthy was responsiable for Hollywood's Blacklist, then why wouldn't it be just as easy for those same people to have their own form of opposite list that would only hire people that were favorable to their point of view. Which I might point out; that some people believe is exactly what has happened. I think you & most people will agree that Hollywood is far more Liberal then Conservative. BST 

• bloc said on Aug 24, 2007....

  it's pretty simple, the idea of ruining peoples careers and lives because of their political opinions is unameircan and undemocratic. 

• travelr712 said on Aug 26, 2007....

  i'm glad to find something that we agree on bloc, i hope to find many more things in the future :-)

• bewaresmoothtalkers said on Aug 26, 2007....

  T712......SOooooo, I guess it's ok to be for the Idea  that it's Unamerican & undemocratic to ruin or smear peoples names & lives as long as their not  Conservatives. Conservatives are People too! Or, is it just that Liberals feel anything they say & do is ok because it's for the good of the whole. Ask yourself; How many big name Hollywood Elites that are conservative, openly on a regular basis, denigrate liberals? Leave out the TV & radio talk shows.  BST

• travelr712 said on Aug 26, 2007....

  beware - if someone offers an opinion, that is their constitutional right guaranteed by freedom of speech. if a person or a group of people denies employment to another group based on race, creed or political persuasion, that is unconstitutional. we were talking about the mcarthy senate commission and the proven 'black listing' of people based on their communist political stance, or on just the suspicion of a communist leaning, which turned into anyone senator mcarthy decided he didn't like. howard hughes was the only person to successfully stand up to mcarthy, and after his inquest, the senate shut mcarthy down. i prefer to debate on facts, not emotional attachments.

• bewaresmoothtalkers said on Aug 26, 2007....

  T712....'I prefer to debate on facts"! well the simple facts are Senator mcCarthy had nothing to do with- HCUA or as many people knew it as HUAC. That stands for House Committee on Un-American Activities, which investigated Alger Hiss, & the Hollywood film Industry, which led to the blacklisting of hundreds of actors, writers & directors. I repete, McCarty was a senator & wasn't in the house. Maybe you should read more history books & watch less movies that portray their version of history. Yea! I guess you caught me,  I'll just go put my Love Joe buttons back in the drawer. Oh! if you don't want to bother with history books, then try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mccarthy.

• bloc said on Aug 26, 2007....

  @bst
  i never said or implied "as long as their not conservatives". You may want to take off your tinfoil hat.

• travelr712 said on Aug 26, 2007....

  beware: Beginning in 1950, McCarthy became the most visible public face of a period of extreme anti-communist suspicion inspired by the tensions of the Cold War. He was noted for making unsubstantiated claims that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the federal government. Ultimately, his tactics led to his being discredited and censured by the United States Senate. The term "McCarthyism," coined in 1950 in reference to McCarthy's practices, was soon applied to similar anti-communist pursuits. Today the term is used more generally to describe demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated accusations, as well as public attacks on the character or patriotism of political opponents.[1]
  
  my apologies if i did not make a clear enough distinction for you. i thought it was obvious.
  

• bewaresmoothtalkers said on Aug 26, 2007....

  Bloc.... Still at your silly little word games, You don't have to imply anything, it's as plain as the nose on your face. The only thing that maybe balanced about you is you probably have two of everything just like the rest of us. You remind me of the Liberal that tells everyone coming into his house, "you are welcome in my house as long as you agree with what I say but if you can't, then go outside with the rest of the Damn Conservatives". BST

• bewaresmoothtalkers said on Aug 26, 2007....

  T712.....May I point out that you gave credit to Mccarthy for the blacklist, which was not factual & you said you only debate facts. If I was a liberal, then maybe it would have been obvious. What you said in your last comment is true. Back to the point I was making; Would you name me any Hollywood elites that are conservatives that attack or smear the character of any liberal, other then radio or TV talk show host? How would you  charactize the rants by some well known people that;[ Bush,our government & the Jews were behind the 9/11 incident or that Bush & the Republican party was behind the Levies failing because they hate blacks], this relates to Liberal Hollywood elites.

   Please don't be like a typical liberal, they won't admit out right when they're wrong. They have to make some kind of sarcastic & demeaning remark to cover their error. A simple you're right, then continue with your arguement would have done it. BST

• travelr712 said on Aug 26, 2007....

  dear beware:
  i voted for g.w. bush in 2000 and again in 2004. stop calling me a liberal please.
  

• bewaresmoothtalkers said on Aug 26, 2007....

  T712....I didn't call you a liberal, I said please don't be like a typical liberal. Bloc claims to be fair & balanced by including Andrew Sullivan in his reading material but as I pointed out Sullivan is more like a blue dog democrat. Having read your comments, you sound more like a democrat then republican & more like a liberal then conservative. You said you voted for Bush but didn't label yourself. A label is nothing more then a basis or starting point for discussions. BST

• travelr712 said on Aug 26, 2007....

  see how phrases can be misconstrued? i have no party affiliations myself, i vote for the person that i think is right for the job. that includes democrats, republicans and libertarians when appropriate.

• bewaresmoothtalkers said on Aug 26, 2007....

  Bloc....I watched your so-called clips, in reality it's someone else's clips. I saw at the end of one- it said we'll watch so you won't have to. Is that what you do, rely on an anti-O'Reilly web sight that does nothing more then find any little item they can use aganist him. Does this web sight do the same for all channels or do they have a specific agenda? We all know how Fair & Balanced Liberal web sights are, not like the nasty onesided Conservatives. Hell ; liberals would never take a conservatves remarks out of context, or use a story that hadn't been fully checked out or put politics ahead of the good of their country like the terrible Conservatives do!! We can only hope that all those people that watch O'Reilly & make him the number one talk show on cable TV, will wise-up & start watching someone else.   

• bewaresmoothtalkers said on Aug 26, 2007....

  T712.... Thats find by me, we now have found common ground & any further discussions can go from there. Have a nice day!  BST

• bloc said on Aug 26, 2007....

  @bst
  These clips speak for themselves. No one made them up, and questioning the site they come from is silly when all it's doing is showing bill O in his own words.

• bewaresmoothtalkers said on Aug 26, 2007....

  Bloc.....Nice try; I never said any one made them up & yes they speak for them selves- so what! When you pay as much attention to the faults of the left as you do to the right, you can then act like you have some creditability, but until you do, you come across as nothing more then a shill for the Far left. Have a Nice Day BST 

• kelly said on Aug 26, 2007....

  "No thanks. The Democrats are already represented by an ass (or several of them).
  We will stick with the elephant."
  Guess which one produces more dung. :-)

• bloc said on Aug 27, 2007....

  "you can then act like you have some creditability"
  
  I have a good credit score ;)

• silverwhisper said on Aug 27, 2007....

  well, that and a much close stance to the middle... :D
  
  ed

• lioneljay said on Aug 27, 2007....

  BST, I'd be very interested in seeing any similarly dishonest news reports from other press outlets that you'd like to highlight. If you can find current examples of dishonest reporting from a liberal slant, let's take a look and then discuss them just as we're doing here.

• bewaresmoothtalkers said on Aug 27, 2007....

  LJ......That's a fair request ! But I'm not the one claiming to be impartial. Neither Bloc or Sw seem to care about talking about the past, how about you? I've got a report in front of me right now from http://www.alamo-girl.com/0291.htm that includes 53 pages of every thing from relationships that most people would consider conflicts of interest to stories that were killed to protect certain people.

  Here's just a sample: In reference to the Clinton/ China connection, Katie Couric-forwarded the arguement that China would have figured out the science "on it's own" so it's not a big deal. The point being; do you even know what Katie Couric is talking about & if so, why didn't the major press outlets give the story more coverage? BST

• bloc said on Aug 27, 2007....

  when did I "not care about talking about the past"? You are the one trying to not talk about O'reilly and the specific clips I've shown.

• bewaresmoothtalkers said on Aug 27, 2007....

  Bloc....Bravo,  you are something else, comment before last one, How about Sandy Berger? when I brought him up, your reply was; "it must have been while I was still in the army". Oh! & I'm glad you've got a good credit score, I bet especially among your liberal supporters!  BST

• bloc said on Aug 27, 2007....

  @bst
  I was thinking about your last comment a bit more. This is typical, delusional, drivel that you are peddling. I wrote a post about Bill O'reilly lacking integrity and provided ample evidence of my claim. I wrote this post due to a discussion I was having with mobil amongst others. In this discussion, and elsewhere on SC, I was told that O'reilly was a respectable journalist and in one case I was directly challenged to prove that he's lied about anything. Actually, I was twice challenged to do this.
  
  
  Now, back to your last comment. How does any of your comment relate to my post? I don't watch Couric, I don't think she's a good journalist, and I've never mentioned her. She has nothing to do with me, my post, or the debate over O'reilly's credibility. 
  
  
  This is another example of what I call the "cluster fuck" technique used by wingnuts on this site. When a wingnut doesn't like a post, and they dont' want to debate the facts of circumstances of the post, they resort to throwing out a litany of unrelated crap in an attempt to obfuscate and distort anyone attempting to make sense of the actual issue at hand. 
  
  
  Here is a list of your nonsense:
  
  You try to smear me: "not only are you immature, but I think you get your talking points from other left wing web sights & you parriot them on your post."
  
  You try to smear me again by claiming that I regurgitate
  
  You bring up some unrelated stuff: "make sure you applaude that Newspaper in the Northwest for not running the pictures of those two men that the FBI wanted to talk to about they're strange behavior on the Ferry boats."
  
  You try to smear me again: "Bloc.... Still at your silly little word games, You don't have to imply anything, it's as plain as the nose on your face. The only thing that maybe balanced about you is you probably have two of everything just like the rest of us."
  
  You try to smear liberals in general: "Please don't be like a typical liberal, they won't admit out right when they're wrong"
  
  You try to smear the source of the clips: "Is that what you do, rely on an anti-O'Reilly web sight"
  
  You try to smear me again: "When you pay as much attention to the faults of the left as you do to the right, you can then act like you have some creditability, but until you do, you come across as nothing more then a shill for the Far left. "
  
  You make some bullshit claim about myself and sw: "Neither Bloc or Sw seem to care about talking about the past, how about you?"
  
  You bring up something totally unrelated to this post or me: "I've got a report in front of me right now from http://www.alamo-girl.com/0291.htm that includes 53 pages of every thing from relationships that most people would consider conflicts of interest to stories that were killed to protect certain people."
  
  
  And this is just a quick overview of your comments. You've written a large amount of text in this post and I can't find a single instance where you've discussed the substance of the clips I've shown or the issue at hand in any serious manner. This is classic "cluster fuck" wingnut style. 

• bloc said on Aug 27, 2007....

  Let's add another item to BST's little of cluster fuckage. Sandy Berger. 

• travelr712 said on Aug 27, 2007....

  bloc - that's why i stopped responding to bst. he reminds me too much of gwb

• bewaresmoothtalkers said on Aug 27, 2007....

  T712....Sorry I gave you more credit then you deserve, you aren't even a good liberal. Alien & Mobil are right,about Bloc, now you can be counted in the same mold. I guess there's more kids on this web sight then I thought. You, Bloc & SW make a nice three-some, oh & lets not forget LJ, he agrees with about everything the rest of you write. Or should I say what other people write & you repeat. All you boys have a nice day! BST 

• bloc said on Aug 28, 2007....

  more smearing and no substance from BST.

• travelr712 said on Aug 28, 2007....

  bloc - if he ever adds a legitimate point to the discussion, i might take my time to answer him. i can see why o'reilly is his favorite talk show host, they have the same mentality.

Comment on "Bill O'reilly has no integrity"

Currently tagged	Bill OReilly politics liars fox news media the media ass later Liar Liar Pants on Fire (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment