Showing posts with label Bill O'Reilly. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill O'Reilly. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

O'Reilly: "There's no question there is a Muslim problem in the world".



O'Reilly decides to double down on his claims regarding Muslims and now states, "There's no question there is a Muslim problem in the world".

He seems determined, as do many right wingers, to view all Muslims as somehow responsible for the behaviour of an extremist few and labels anyone who refuses to agree with his world view as suffering from "politically correct nonsense".

Of course, one is not being "politically correct" when stating that we are not battling against all Muslims, but are engaged in a war against certain Muslim extremists; one is simply being factual.

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Jesse Ventura: Popular Things Don't Need Protecting.



Jesse Ventura, speaking of the Park 51 mosque, comes out with the most eloquent defence I have so far heard:

Ventura: Excuse me, the Constitution says they can do it. It ends there. You cannot subject the Constitution to a popularity poll. The Constitution, Joy, is there to protect unpopular speech, popular things don't need protecting.
Crooks and Liars have highlighted the fact that he called Bill O'Reilly, "a spineless puke" but I think the point he makes above is a far more important one.

Friday, October 15, 2010

Bill O'Reilly inspires walkout on The View: 'Muslims killed us on 9/11'.



Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar walk off the set after Bill O'Reilly states that "Muslims killed us on 9/11!"

I found what they did embarrassing. Surely they are able to remain in their position and argue with a bigot like O'Reilly?

They return after O'Reilly states, "if anyone felt that I was demeaning all Muslims, I apologize."

O'Reilly seems not to get that, by opposing the Park 51 mosque, he is already conflating all Muslims together and saying that, because of the actions of a few Muslim extremists, no Muslim should have the right to worship anywhere near the 9-11 area.



O'Reilly mounts a silly defence of his position.

O'Reilly: As I say on The Factor tonight, when we're talking about WWII, do we say we were attacked by Japanese extremists? No, we talk about the Japanese attacked us.
The Japanese did attack the US, it was the action of a sovereign state, not the action of a few Japanese extremists. O'Reilly appears not to understand this distinction.

Thursday, October 14, 2010

O'Reilly: "Nobody outside of your crazy left-wing loons believes" that Fox carries water for GOP.



Only "loons" believe what is glaringly obvious, according to O'Reilly.

Saturday, October 09, 2010

Beck: Fire department "had to" let Tennessee house burn down, otherwise, you have "Obamacare".



Glenn Beck actually agrees that firemen were right to watch a man's house burn down.

You can see how O'Reilly now comes across as a voice of reason compared to the insanity of the new extremist right wing of the Republicans which Beck represents.

In their world it really is every man for himself.

Tuesday, October 05, 2010

O'Reilly: If you don't count African-Americans and liberals, Obama "has very little support in the rest of the country".



Even by O'Reilly's standards, this is painful.

Basically he is saying, if you remove over half of the country, then no-one supports Obama.

I could counter that if you remove Tea Party supporters, rabid right wingers and gun toting lunatics, then no-one watches O'Reilly.

Saturday, September 18, 2010

O'Reilly says Rove has a duty to be "honest" on Fox; Perino responds by touting $50M Rove raised for Republicans.



Perino avoids saying that she would feel comfortable campaigning for O'Donnell whilst reminding Fox viewers that Karl Rove has raised over $50 million for the Republican cause.

The tensions which the Tea Party movement is causing within Republican ranks is starting to creak it's way into the open.

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

O'Reilly: "I don't know how the far left continues to survive in the U.S.A."



Billo just doesn't get it. He thinks the left is being hateful for pointing out religious freedom is a right for all Americans.

Bill insists that no-one wants to persecute Muslims in the Unites States, whilst insisting that the building of a mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero is insensitive. He doesn't appear to see that this is insisting that Muslims have less rights than followers of other religions.

What's really underneath this controversy was revealed the other day during an interview on CNN.


Lemon: Don't you think it's a bit different considering what happened on 9/11? And the people have said there's a need for it in Lower Manhattan, so that's why it's being built there. What about 10, 20 blocks . . . Midtown Manhattan, considering the circumstances behind this? That's not understandable?

Patel: In America, we don't tell people based on their race or religion or ethnicity that they are free in this place, but not in that place --


Lemon: [interrupting] I understand that, but there's always context, Mr. Patel . . . this is an extraordinary circumstance. You understand that this is very heated. Many people lost their loved ones on 9/11 --


Patel: Including Muslim Americans who lost their loved ones. . . .


Lemon: Consider the context here. That's what I'm talking about.


Patel: I have to tell you that this seems a little like telling black people 50 years ago: you can sit anywhere on the bus you like - just not in the front.


Lemon: I think that's apples and oranges - I don't think that black people were behind a Terrorist plot to kill people and drive planes into a building. That's a completely different circumstance.


Patel: And American Muslims were not behind the terrorist plot either.
It shouldn't need to be said that American Muslims were not behind 9-11 and yet that is what Lemon is implying when he talks of "context". He is implying that all Muslims should pay the price for the actions of a few Muslim extremists.

Saturday, August 07, 2010

O'Reilly blames Obama failures on racial politics -- then blows up when right-wing race-baiting is pointed out.



O'Reilly starts this segment by pointing out that blacks support Obama and implying that many whites do not.

Let's take the white situation first. According to the polls, most white Americans don't like the huge expansion of the federal government. They also oppose the big spending increases that the president has imposed. It's simple. White Americans fear government control. They don't want the feds telling them what to do, and they don't want a bankrupt nation.

... But black America has a totally different view. For decades, African-Americans have supported a bigger federal government so it can impose social justice. A vast majority of blacks want money spent to level the playing field, to redistribute income from the white establishment to their precincts, and to provide better education and health care at government expense. So the African-American voter generally loves what President Obama is doing.

One of his guests then points out that he is switching on the "Republican racial fear mongering machine" by trying to link the healthcare debate to race.

O'Reill then bizarrely states, "It's got nothing to do with race. Zero."

Then why did he start the discussion by framing this as black and white issue? And why does he argue that blacks continue to support Obama because they are the main beneficiaries of his social justice programmes? He says that this issue has nothing to do with race, and he is right, but why does he, himself, insist on framing this issue in such a way?

What enrages him here is that his own race baiting is being pointed out to him and he is forced to reverse course.

Monday, July 19, 2010

"Absurd": Schieffer dismisses O'Reilly's suggestion that media are protecting Obama on New Black Panthers case.



Fox News are, predictably, continuing to hype their nonsensical Black Panther story, with O'Reilly saying that other networks aren't covering this story because they are out "to protect Obama".

Schieffer dismisses this by calling it what it is: absurd.

It has already been revealed that this was a part of a Republican plan to "bring down Eric Holder and really damage the president", so O'Reilly is being even more disingenuous than usual when making this crazy claim.

Fox are entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to manufacture their own facts.

Sunday, July 18, 2010

The Day The Controversy Over The New Black Panther Case Fell Apart.

I've been talking for days about the right wing obsession with the non-story of Black Panther voter intimidation, but today comes a statement from Abigail Thernstro, who Bush appointed as vice chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which reveals that this right wing obsession is part of a Republican plan to "bring down Eric Holder and really damage the president."

“This doesn’t have to do with the Black Panthers; this has to do with their fantasies about how they could use this issue to topple the [Obama] administration,” said Thernstrom, who said members of the commission voiced their political aims “in the initial discussions” of the Panther case last year.

“My fellow conservatives on the commission had this wild notion they could bring Eric Holder down and really damage the president,” Thernstrom said in an interview with POLITICO.
This is the first time that anyone is admitting that there was a conscious decision, by conservatives on the commission, to deliberately use this issue in the hope of damaging Holder and Obama. To that end, the Fox News noise machine has been chattering on about this story relentlessly. Media Matters has found that Fox News have discussed this non-story 95 times, talking about it for a total of eight hours of airtime.

At the core of Megyn Kelly's claims, has been the notion that the DOJ no longer prosecutes cases with black defendants where the plaintiffs are white. It was always an utterly outrageous proposition. Now it has been utterly destroyed:
But court filings earlier this week, in which the Obama Justice Department is asking a federal court to extend its injunction against black leaders in Mississippi for discriminating against white voters, should end once and for all the scurrilous accusation that the Obama administration is hostile to prosecuting black defendants on behalf of white victims.
Now, other conservative voices are now coming into the open criticising this Fox News led obsession over what was a relatively minor incident.
“There are more important issues to go after Attorney General Holder on even in terms of the voting rights section itself,” said Linda Chavez, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, who was staff director of the Civil Rights Commission in the Reagan years and called the video “damning” but relatively minor.

“Because it’s 24-hour news and cable news and Fox News — this is the kind of story, like the ACORN story, that’s got pictures that you can run over and over again,” said Chavez, who noted that she’s a Fox News contributor.


“When it comes to race, the right, like the left, can't resist getting hung up with trivia and sideshows,” said Amy Wax, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of an influential book arguing that discrimination against blacks is no longer very meaningful. “How do the antics of these two Black Panthers make a difference?”


A leading writer on the widely read HotAir marveled at Fox’s eagerness to offer a platform to the New Black Panther Party’s ranting chairman, Malik Shabazz, crediting it to the fact that the “outrageous outrage he provokes is good for ratings and partly because, as here, his demagoguery necessarily casts the host in the role of Spokesman for Decency."


And Doug Mataconis of the conservative blog Outside the Beltway called the flap “much ado about very, very little.”
This story is now utterly in tatters.

So in the past day, the following things have been happened: The idea that there was outside pressure from the administration to close the case has been shown to have no evidentiary basis, the commission has been exposed as deliberately attempting to damage the administration with this investigation, and Adams' claim that the Voting Section does not intervene on behalf of white voters has been proven conclusively false.

I don't expect that this will do anything to silence the Fox News noise machine, it will grind on continuing to see reverse racism all over the place, because that is what it's tea party supporters wants it to tell them.

But, for everyone else, this story should now be considered truly dead and buried. I've said before that people like Megyn Kelly should be ashamed of themselves for the way they have race baited over this story. But she won't be. This was, after all, a deliberate right wing plan to "bring down Holder and really damage the president".

Fox News will actually be proud to find themselves leading such a mission. It's what that channel exists for.

Click here for full article.

Saturday, July 17, 2010

O'Reilly and Kelly Continue Fear Mongering on Black Panthers Case.



Megyn Kelly continues her unbearable quest to turn this non-story into an important event.

Kelly: And the reason that I'm passionate about this case and this story, Bill, is I believe in fidelity to the law. And I believe your viewers know that about me. It doesn't matter whether it's left or right, conservative or liberal. I try to follow the law.
That's the crux of her argument that O'Reilly dutifully is ready to distribute. Kelly is not being honest with the false narrative that she doesn't care which ideology is to blame for not upholding the law because her outrage was nowhere to be found during the Bush years. It's all a smoke screen. J.Christian Adams is a fraud and everyone who has a smidgen of integrity knows it.
Digby:
The latest of these stories is the so-called cover-up by the DOJ of the Black Panther voter intimidation crimes (alleged by one of the high level Bush operatives burrowed into the bureaucracy) in which the wingnuts have wrapped themselves like it's the shroud of Rosa Parks. The weeping, the wailing, the rending of garments over the horror of poor white folk being driven from the polls by Big Angry Black Supremacist Movement has them virtually speaking in tongues.

Media Matters traces the whole story, including the recent pick-up by the MSM. And what they found is that the case was dismissed before Obama took office, which pokes a few holes in the right wing narrative that states the Obama homeboys took over the DOJ and issued orders immediately that they were never to bring charges against black people again. Not that anyone cares at this point. Everybody's just screaming ACORN ACORN ACORN! and the subtle racism continues apace.
Kelly can claim all she wants that this is a genuine story and that she is simply wanting to see "fidelity to the law", but that's balderdash.

She's playing the "scary black man" thingy and implying that the Obama administration are operating a policy of reverse racism. In other words, she's playing directly to the deepest fears of the tea party protesters, who just happen to be her viewers.

She is shameless.

UPDATE:

Nor is she alone.

Fox News has hyped phony New Black Panthers scandal at least 95 times.

Friday, July 16, 2010

Bernie Goldberg: "White liberals normally would never abandon the first black president" "for some vanilla ... white guy"



Bernie Goldberg is insisting that Hillary Clinton is going to challenge Obama in 2012.

I am going out on a limb. I think she will challenge in 2012. But, I understand that this is a long shot. All I am saying is, that this is no longer a crazy idea.
Let me go out on a limb. That is an utterly crazy idea. Hillary would never challenge Obama. It would ostracise Clinton with the Democrat party.

What we are witnessing here is simply right wing wishful thinking. They would love the Democrats to self implode...

Saturday, July 10, 2010

Ed Schultz Hits Back at O'Reilly for Saying MSNBC Lies Every Day With Highlight Reel of Fox Lies.



Bill O'Reilly accuses MSNBC of lying "every day". Ed Schultz responds. This is known as going after low hanging fruit.

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Hannity and Coulter criticize "thin-skinned" Obama over McChrystal resignation.



I have no doubt that, had Obama decided to keep McChrystal in his position, Coulter and Hannity would now be saying that Obama had only kept him on because he lacked the strength to fire him.

Their position - and that of most of Fox News - appears to be that whatever Obama does is necessarily wrong because it is Obama who has done it.

Watch O'Reilly carry on the theme that Obama is acting strong to avoid "Jimmy Carterville".



On Fox there really is nothing that Obama can do that isn't wrong.

If he'd kept him on, it was because Obama was weak. If he fired him, Obama is simply too thin skinned.

The bias on Fox is as laughable as it is predictable.

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Stossel says escrow fund is a "thuggish Chicago shakedown," refers to "Vladimir Obama".



Stossel says that Obama has carried out a "thuggish Chicago shakedown" by forcing BP to compensate people hurt by the Gulf oil spill. What's funny is that these right wingers can't even be sure to keep Bill O'Reilly on board.

The last time I came across Stossel he was arguing that private business had a right to discriminate. So I regard him as simply a raving loon.

UPDATE:



Limbaugh claims that Obama has stolen BP's property and that Obama has committed an "abject violation of the US constitution".

I honestly don't get what these people think there is to gain by putting their chips on the side of the polluting oil company.

Sunday, June 20, 2010

O'Reilly Gives Bachmann A Hard Time For Accusing Obama Of Extortion.



When did Bill O'Reilly become the voice of reason? Here he forces the insane Michelle Bachmann to back down from accusing Obama of extortion. She really doesn't have an argument and O'Reilly beats her back from her every position.

Saturday, June 19, 2010

Beck on why curling is better than soccer: "You could have girls come out and curl against the pros in Canada".



Even O'Reilly can't listen to Beck's crap regarding football. I mean I know part of this nonsense he spews is defending American exceptionalism, but the United States football team get better every time they come to the World Cup. I wonder, if they ever have a realistic chance of winning it, would the opinions of people like Beck instantly change?

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Palin in Car Crash TV with O'Reilly.



Bill O'Reilly puts Palin on the spot and exposes the fact that she really has no idea what she is talking about.

First, [O'Reilly] challenged Palin by saying, “49% of Americans still want BP to run the show and only 45% want the government to run the show.”

If you stop the video at about the 3:00 point, you can see the look of dismay on Palin’s face, followed by nervousness, moments after he said that, as she must have realized this was not going to be the kind of cakewalk she has probably come to expect on Fox News.


O’Reilly went on to ask, “What is your solution, here, Governor? What would you do tonight – tell the nation tonight, what you would have said, the main point in that speech. Go.”


Palin obviously had no idea. “Stopping the gusher,” she said. “That’s the number one priority of the nation.”


“But nobody knows how to do it,” O’Reilly countered.


“Well, we haven’t had the assurance by the president that that has been his top priority.” Her voice rose with more condescension, as she continued to evade the question and, instead, went on to accuse the president of making “cap and tax” his greater priority and “using this crisis… to increase the cost of energy.”


“Are you telling me that you don’t think the president’s top priority is stopping that leak? Is that what you’re telling me?” O’Reilly asked, not bothering to hide his incredulity.
He then asks her what she would do if she was in charge and it is clear within seconds that she has absolutely no idea what she is talking about.

As O’Reilly continued to press her to name whom Obama should turn to, she said, “The Dutch, they are known and the Norwegians. They are known for dikes and for cleaning up water.”

Poor Palin. All that money and backing and she still keeps making a fool of herself.

I have no idea whether O'Reilly set out to skewer her in this way, but he did manage to reveal her as nothing other than an ignorant partisan little hack. It's glaringly obvious that she can only talk in utterly meaningless sound bites.

Wednesday, June 09, 2010

O'Reilly says it's "ridiculous" that some people are offended by Obama's "ass to kick" comment.



Colmes points out that Obama can never win with some in the American media. He is either too cool and detached, or it's outrageous that he talks of kicking ass.

O'Reilly is unaware of anyone on the right expressing this outrage. Perhaps he doesn't watch Hannity.