Fox Basher Claim: 'I Posted' Clinton Death Threat on BillOReilly.com!


The Outfoxed gals allow the most repellent personal atatcks on their own website. Are they also harboring a criminal? Updated!

The Fox haters do not like sunlight. When Bill O'Reilly read hateful comments posted on sites like the DailyKos, and more recently started showing some of their graphics (that have been described as "vile" or worse), there was an immediate counterattack. Blue bloggers scoured the O'Reilly site and came up with several extreme comments. Kos even claimed that the Secret Service was investigating one of them for a threat on Hillary Clinton's life! For his part, O'Reilly believes it was planted, and there are new developments on that front.

Naturally, no smear of Fox can proceed without the participation of the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed mob). Their part in this was to urge all the kennel-dwellers to boycott Mr Bill's advertisers and bombard them with emails. If that sounds familiar, it's because they've tried this ploy before. And before that. And before that. In fact, it seems to be an annual event, sort of like celebrating the solstice. And yet it seems oddly inconsistent. After all, it was the newspoodles who railed against Fox for trying to "destroy everything that stands in their way"--because they listed advertisers on a CBS program. On another occasion, the curs insisted this practice was an attack on free speech and a "new low". Yet all that is forgotten as the bowsers launch their latest attempt at boycotting advertisers. Hypocrisy is coin of the realm in the Fox haters' echo chamber.

The biased bassets don't exactly come to this issue with clean paws. They seem to have no problem with vile personal attacks appearing on their own website. Case in point: Michelle Malkin, whose recent guest host appearances on The Factor inspired these intellectual responses from the denizens of the dog pound [profanity deleted]:



Yes, this is the level of discourse in the Fox haters' noise machine. But the most stunning post of the past few weeks may well be from one who calls himself "Marco", a prolific regular at the pound with a long record of Fox bashing. Regarding the Hilary Clinton "death threat" that appeared on O'Reilly's website, Marco discusses what blue blogs have found on Mr Bill's site. But first he makes what could be an astounding admission: "I posted the one [comment] turned over to the SS [Secret Service]"! It appears Mr O'Reilly may not have been wrong when he claimed the comment was planted. We don't know how long the anti-Fox terriers will allow this message to stand unaltered, so we've preserved the record:



All of this raises several questions. Did "Marco" mean what he said, and is he telling the truth? Is there an organized effort to plant phony "threats" on targeted websites? Who is referring these to the Secret Service? How many federal crimes are committed when the Secret Service is sent off to investigate concocted, nonexistent threats? Could someone end up in the house of many doors, and for how many years?

As for the mutts, their rank hypocrisy is exposed once again. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Update: Welcome DailyKos readers. We wish you the best of luck in finding what DailyKos says is posted here:
He claims to have 'proof' that someone at Newshounds 'planted' the comment on Bill's website...

A great use of the straw man, with the gratuitous quotes around the word "proof" a particularly deceptive touch. That description of this article is laughably tendentious and untrue. But then, if you've read this far, you already know that. If you're disappointed that DailyKos misled you, you might enjoy this instead.

posted: Sun - July 29, 2007 at 12:15 PM       j$p  send 

John-O
If that guy really did plant himself, then the blue blogs have serious egg on their faces.
 
First, I hope this gets confirmed. Then I hope the SOB at the Huffington Post who called the Secret Service gets invited on the Factor!
July 29, 2007, 12:58:37 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Good Lt.
The comment has been removed. Make sure you gots da screenshots.
July 29, 2007, 12:59:58 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Good Lt.
On another reading, it could be possible that he was simply saying that he reproduced the comment he saw there for everyone to read. As in "I posted it here so you can read it."
 
It might be a little premature to assume he just admitted to doing something so stupid.
 
I'd keep sifting through this moron's comments to see if it can be substantiated. 
 
Not that leftwingnuts planting phony comments and lies on other sites is abnormal - far from it. 
 
Just make sure you can back this up.
July 29, 2007, 1:04:55 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
> As in "I posted it here so you can read it."
 
That might be a possible interpretation, but it would be more credible if in fact he DID repost the comment there so people could read it. But he didn't do that. He simply said he posted it, and then went on to reproduce a DIFFERENT comment that somebody else claims to have found.
 
> Just make sure you can back this up.
 
HE'S the one who appears to be claiming it. I don't know if he's telling the truth or not. But either way, it's majorly weird.
July 29, 2007, 1:14:26 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Scott
That comment is still there as of this time stamp of my post. Second from the top.
Of course Bill mentions one comment of the several objectionable ones found on his site, and of course blows it off. I posted the one turned over to the SS now and it was a bit freaky deaky. This one was found today by John Aravosis - who was of course banned for finding and displaying it. 
 
"Maybe it's time to burn down the capitol building like Hitler did with the Reichstag building."
 
Bill won't be mentioning this. He will be lying about its existence however.
Marco | 07.26.07 - 4:44 pm | #
July 29, 2007, 1:35:49 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Scott
Johnny, appears the mutts master, bravenewfilms, has a hound in this threat since it's posted on their site, too. I know go figure. 
37
psssts 
pssst! 
 
 
 
 
 
Bill O'Reilly's Website Threatens Hillary Clinton's Life
Added 4 days ago
by cliffschecter 
9 Comments 
http://bravenewfilms.org/
July 29, 2007, 2:00:29 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Scrapiron
I read the sleezy left wing 'boycott' post last night. Most of the commentors are so stupid they ask the site to write a letter they could copy and send to O'Reillys sponsors. Hey Mr Sponsor if you listen to these retards you should lose business to the point of going out of business. I saw several post that take up the 'projection' rant commonly used by democrats. They are slime and try to project it to the conservatives, won't work, anyone with an IQ above freezing 'F' has you figured out. I love the way MM sits there and listens to their crazy rants and then rips them to shreds, and she does it with class, something missing from the entire democrat party. If you need proof that the democrat party has became a comedy group just watch Dirty Harry and Peeeloshi. I enjoy watching people like Leaky Leahy ranting for more national security information after having his security clearance take for leaking such information for political gain. With traitors/terrorists like those in the democrat party we don't need any Islamic 'terrorists' enemies. Democrats have changed JFK's speach to 'ask not what we can do for the country, ask how we are set to destroy it'.
July 29, 2007, 2:03:18 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Scott
Well said Scrapiron! Well said! It goes to show what has happened since the teacher's union's begged for less money from their democrat puppet's in the concrap so Shop, PE and HomeEC classes were elminated so the socialist indoctronator's could fill more of their propaganda into their little minds. Now a generation is lazy, obese and demanding everything handed to them and responsibilty, what stinking responsibility.
July 29, 2007, 2:15:59 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Christie
The comments here don't come close to the vile posts that Michelle received after she posted the email addresses of the commie brats who drove the military recruiters from UC Santa Cruz campus.
I tried 'engaging' with them and guess what, the profane 'dissers' couldn't take it!
We ought to wear mirrors every time one of these idiots call one of us Hitler.
I don't see any attempt from people on the right to silence their drivel.
We know, do we not, that once you know what is right you still have to deal with what's left.
July 29, 2007, 2:56:45 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Bigfoot
Boy, wouldn't I love to be as ugly as Michelle Malkin?.
July 29, 2007, 3:10:11 PM EDT – Like – Reply


DannoJyD
We've got the screen shots and are sending them to all of our 'friends'.
It is good that America can see the Democrat Party for what it really is.
July 29, 2007, 3:37:25 PM EDT – Like – Reply


inmypajamas
Michelle's ugly? Huh? Do lefties' eyes not communicate with their brains? Hmm, actually that would explain an awful lot, seeing as how even when the truth stares them in the face, they can't see it.
 
Michelle is a confident, intelligent, informed (and beautiful) defender of the truth and I am glad she is on our side of the fence. She fights for justice just like O'Reilly and I hope she is in line to take over when he retires.
July 29, 2007, 4:06:23 PM EDT – Like – Reply


John-O
Does anyone think Lane Hudson would have called the SS if a "threat" was made on George W. Bush's life?
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lane-hudson/billoreillycom-being-inv_b_57777.html
July 29, 2007, 4:14:26 PM EDT – Like – Reply


nuke gingrich
Good job!
Got the screenshot, and linked you here
July 29, 2007, 4:34:40 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
Sunlight is a good disinfectant; I prefer Lysol with bleach. NH needs to be scrubbed but their filth will remain as a cyst in the brains of the haters long after it's gone. I'm glad that their site exists though- Fox haters might go somewhere more noteworthy and effective if it didn't.
 
Keep on keepin' on NewsHounds!
July 29, 2007, 5:21:05 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Jennie Kurono
You need industrial strength disinfectant to clean the grease spots the netroots and their cohort's leave behind. They are sick puppies. Mad dogs when exposed. May they always be destroyed in the public court of opinion. At least with the majority of good Americans. 
I am so glad that O'Reilly and Michelle, and this blog are exposing them for the sick hypocrites they truly are.
July 29, 2007, 6:38:02 PM EDT – Like – Reply


sknabt
J$,
 
Your hysterical, jumbled pile of baloney takes the proverbial cake.
 
We've crossed this bridge before regarding Gibby's half-truth liberal-bashing episode along these lines. O'Reilly's using the same dishonest game to bash liberals in typical "no spin" fashion to compound his fraud. Big surprise their fans start a parrot act.
 
One issue is should outrageous - but not illegal - anonymous comments be deleted? A while back, J$, you protested when I claimed you wanted to delete these sorts of posts. So do you? Your hero, O'Reilly, appears to believe we should. 
 
He's run the issue up the flag pole on his show so is it surprising liberals sick of his attacks take the obvious step of finding some on his web site to wave into his face to disprove his claim he deletes said filth immediately? 
 
You should have left this one alone but, no, you try for high comedy. Oh, the anonymous poster spouting hate at Bill's site is a fake. Yes-sir-ee. How do we know? Because there's an anonymous poster over at News Hounds who said they did it. 
 
I'll top you. Give me a second and I'll post under the name Barnacle Bill that I'm your gay lover and I saw you do it right after we did the nasty together. 
 
That was one of my points, I believe, back when I was arguing about this over Gibby's foolish spin. You don't know who these folks are. Trolls? Teenie-boppers after a thrill? The real deal? Who knows? Who cares?
 
Oh, sanctimonious liberal-bashers do! 
 
Best I can tell liberal bloggers aren't going after Bill's hate-filled comments because they're really offended. They're teaching him a lesson. So News Hounds has hate comments. I pointed out elsewhere here that your OlbermannWatch has them too. C'mon pooch keep chasing your tail deluded you're some Don Quixote after despicable villains only to keep sniffing your own butt. 
 
It's another key point. Popular blogs can't effectively police comments. Not that I think they should - unless illegal activity is pointed out to them.
 
Toodles and thanks for the laughs.
July 29, 2007, 11:46:03 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
As usual, you completely miss the point. I don't say the poster at Bill's place was a plant. Bill thinks it was a plant, and lo and behold, there is a Fox hater at the #1 Fox hate site (sorry, don't mean to diss your efforts) who seems to be taking "credit" for it. Interesting. Weird. And one might add, if the Secret Service is investigating O'Reilly for the comment posted there (as your new hero Keith Olbermann keeps reporting), then shouldn't they also investigate the hounds? After all they have someone who appears to be a pretty good suspect.
 
You keep bringing up the question of whether such comments should be removed or not. More to the point is that the comments were made in the first place, not what to do with them afterwards. Although I admit, when the newsmutts rush to delete perfectly sane comments just because they expose some deception or lie they've perpetrated, and yet judge the likes of these as fit and permissible to stay, that is a curious standard, is it not?
 
Once again, and I'll say this slowly in the hopes that you can grasp it this time, it's not "my" Olbermann Watch. I don't police the comments. I don't have permission to delete them, and I don't have the access to ban anyone. So you can stop bringing it up, no matter how enraptured you are with the use of the "tu quoque" fallacy.
July 29, 2007, 11:57:44 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Daytona
Johnny Johnny Johnny. You [name calling, personal attack deleted]. Did you read his post or is there a voice inside your head talking to you when you read or do you just have no comprehension at all. "your" olberman watch is the same as "your" fox news and which of course you cover as the premier independent website for the truth about the Fox News Channel and of course which [phrase deleted for rules violation: language] says "you guys are great" and have a total of 100 comments since you started this website for republican losers. I love to come in for a laugh though. You can now delete.

Edited By Siteowner
July 30, 2007, 12:36:10 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Tom in So Cal
Ah yes, the "progressives" certainly have a strange way of showing their "progressive" edge with all their vile hate and racist vitriol. It's sickening to read their vitriolic diatribes at DailyKos, Newhounds, etc., but I feel that I owe it to myself and my children to be educated and informed, so they too can be educated and informed about the real truth behind the "progressive" agenda. I think it's rather obvious that the so-called "progressive's" are more regressive than anything. But, some people cannot see the forest for the trees.
 
I saw the post by "Marco", and to me it certainly appears to be an admission that HE/SHE is the one whom posted that threat later reported to the Secret Service. The comment's been removed and if I'd been more astute, I'd have saved the whole page as html.
 
Anyway, good job Johnny Dollar. I always enjoy visiting. Thanks!
July 30, 2007, 1:23:37 AM EDT – Like – Reply


sknabt
J$,
 
"As usual, you completely miss the point. I don't say the poster at Bill's place was a plant. Bill thinks it was a plant..."
 
Not even a nice try at a dodge. You actually "appear" to agree with Bill on the topic:
 
"It appears Mr O'Reilly may not have been wrong when he claimed the comment was planted."
 
Oh, and it's neither "interesting" nor "weird." How long have you been around? It's no more interesting than some twit implying Keith Olbermann is a child molester over at OlbermannWatch.
 
But speaking of dodges, you still won't get pinned down on whether or not these posts should be deleted. Afraid to commit to an opinion?
 
Plus, your redirection runs us back into a circle. Is it remotely interesting these posts are made in the first place? What's strange about people acting rude when they feel hidden or protected? Perfectly nice people in face-to-face social settings drive like rude banshees behind the wheel of a car, for example, all the time. So why is it strange, protected by the veil of the Internet, some people abuse the moment?
 
As you know, I usually couch any reference to you and OlbermannWatch as mentioning you're just a regular blogger. So I'm aware of your role there. But here's the obvious point you ignore. In the past, you've made the argument blogs are morally responsible for the comments on them. How can you in good conscious actively participate and support a blog that, by your definition, promotes immoral hatred? That's the point, guy.
 
And, as I said earlier, the liberal response including contacting the Secret Service was to make a point in highlighting Bill's hypocrisy. If you want to keep the tit-for-tat going feel free to pick up the phone to do the same.
.
July 30, 2007, 8:14:15 AM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
> You actually "appear" to agree with Bill on the topic:
 
What I wrote is patently true and incontestible: it is possible that O'Reilly may not have been wrong. It's also possible he was wrong. You find that objectionable?
 
Your extreme tolerance of hateful speech is impressive. I guess it was OK for Mel Gibson to spout off; after all he was drunk, and what he said was not illegal. Keith Richards? He has a perfect right to hurl racist insults at people. After all, it's not illegal. And Imus? Why was he fired? Nothing he said was illegal.
 
I can tell you this. I don't recall anyone at Olbermann Watch wishing for Keith to die, and I would upbraid and speak out against anyone who did express such sentiments. Nobody ever called him a "Viet Cong whore", and in fact Mr Cox has in the past removed vile racist comments because he felt they went over the line. Apparently you think there should be no line. I am sorry but I must disagree.
July 30, 2007, 10:15:18 AM EDT – Like – Reply


killer
Keith Richards? Bootstrap Bill? Is this in Rolling Stone? Link please!
July 30, 2007, 2:42:02 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Guest
Well, Malking does look like a $10 whore in Manilla. What's the problem there?
 
And anyone who thinks she is attractive is sick. Since when is having a figure of a 12 year old boy considered attractive???
July 30, 2007, 2:42:05 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Those kinds of personal comments are not appreciated or wanted here. No wonder you stay anonymous.
July 30, 2007, 2:48:42 PM EDT – Like – Reply


A Brit
Put your worried minds at ease and just have a look at one of the screen caps of the original comment, I think Kos or C&L or some such place has it. One quick look reveals the poster has some 1000 or so previous posts to his/her name. Not, I would suggest, the actions of a "drive by" poster wishing to bismirch the good name of the ever trustworthy Mr O.
July 30, 2007, 2:51:03 PM EDT – Like – Reply


A Brit
Sorry, wasn't C&L or Kos where I saw a screen cap of that post, it was Media Matters. Here is a link to the page,
 
http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/oreillycomment-1.jpg
July 30, 2007, 3:22:11 PM EDT – Like – Reply


A Brit
God help me to suss out the internet!
Here is the link to the page with the full set of screens from BillOs site....
http://mediamatters.org/items/200707280004
July 30, 2007, 3:26:25 PM EDT – Like – Reply


sknabt
"What I wrote is patently true and incontestible: it is possible that O'Reilly may not have been wrong. It's also possible he was wrong. You find that objectionable?"
 
Oh, the waffling and hand-wringing. What a hoot! 
 
Thanks for admitting that despite all your hyperventilating about "new developments on that front" and your 'appearance' of agreement with Bill O'Reilly that the hate posts on his web site are plants, that you really have no real faith in that theory after all. 
 
I feel better now. I was starting to fear your shabby analysis and detective work was not in the spirit of legendary radio detective Johnny Dollar whose name you've stolen. 
 
Though if you were a real detective you'd realize one of the Hillary hate posts APPEARS to be by someone with over 1,000 posts on Bill's site:
 
http://www.americablog.com/2007/07/billoreillycom-if-hillary-wins-my-guns.html
 
"Your extreme tolerance of hateful speech is impressive. I guess it was OK for Mel Gibson to spout off; after all he was drunk, and what he said was not illegal. Keith Richards? He has a perfect right to hurl racist insults at people. After all, it's not illegal. And Imus? Why was he fired? Nothing he said was illegal."
 
So you're boycotting Mel Gibson, selling your Rolling Stones CD collection, and burning your autographed photo of Don Imus? 
 
I must have missed whatever outburst Keith Richards is guilty of. Can't comment on that one.
 
No, Mel Gibson and Don Imus are responsible for the public statements they made. I don't appreciate offensive speech but I'll accept their apologies. I don't think fundamentally they're evil people who need to be driven off into career exile. I'm not going to boycott Mel Gibson movies and I wasn't for Imus getting canned though I didn't personally care much for his show.
 
But if you'd given a moment's pause to ponder your poorly fitting analogy you'd be able to answer your own question. The folks you're talking about are celebrities. They live and die by publicity. Bad behavior like Tom Cruise jumping up and down on Ophrah's couch can harm a career because they turn off fickle fans.
 
What we're talking about is sites debating politics. What are they responsible for? If a fan writes Mel Gibson a racist fan letter does that make Mel a racist? Does some commenter calling Keith Olbermann a child molester at OlbermannWatch mean that's the position of you and Cox?
 
The other point in political debate is at what point do we censor it?
 
I'm not going to defend death threats. While I don't take any of the posts I've seen thus far on the topic seriously, technically they cross the line. But the problem with deleting hate speech is where do you draw the line? The rules on your blog prevent calling folks YOU like names. However, there doesn't appear to be much reservation on your part to crank up the flamethrower against liberals. So I call O'Reilly something I get a post deleted but ranting ag
July 31, 2007, 8:22:20 AM EDT – Like – Reply


sknabt
Continued...
 
So I call O'Reilly something I get a post deleted but ranting against the "News Pups" and "Olbyloons" (sp?) is high comedy?
 
BTW, it appears another liberal (or plant) is posting hate speech in Olbyland:
 
"Can we execute all Faux hosts yet?"
 
Best get Cox to hop to it post haste. 
 
"I can tell you this. I don't recall anyone at Olbermann Watch wishing for Keith to die, and I would upbraid and speak out against anyone who did express such sentiments. Nobody ever called him a 'Viet Cong whore.' and in fact Mr Cox has in the past removed vile racist comments because he felt they went over the line. Apparently you think there should be no line. I am sorry but I must disagree."
 
No, they merely implied he was a child molester. Of course, I only read a sampling of comments in a few threads.
 
So Cox deletes posts. O'Reilly deletes posts. Gibby seems to think they should be deleted. J$ doggedly defends all his right-wing buddies. Of course, you pretend to sit on the sidelines as to your personal thoughts on the matter. 
 
You posted a warning to someone describing right-winger Michelle Malkin as a prostitute but calling Olbermann a child molester, I suppose, is high comedy. 
 
People who post hateful comments undermine themselves. In the rather anonymous world of the Internet we're known by what we say. Rather than promoting hate, my experience is usually that sort of crap is condemned by fellow commenters. Commenters who agree with such rubbish, in turn, undermine themselves. Just like Mel Gibson and Don Imus undermined what fans think of them by their thoughtless comments.
 
Sure, to some extent, identities on the Internet are throw-away and can be quickly regenerated. But, in the case of one of the O'Reilly hate posts, the person had allegedly made 1,000 or so posts. That reputation, if it ever stood for anything, is toast. Should his words be traced back to the real person, the embarrassment could have a similar impact in their lives as it did with said celebrities.
 
I'm less afraid with trollish posts being taken seriously than intolerant hypocrites like you, O'Reilly, and Gibby censoring mostly the liberals you love so much trashing.
.
July 31, 2007, 8:25:07 AM EDT – Like – Reply


ImNotBlue
sknabt... just a quick question or two for you:
 
1- Just because that person has 1000+ posts, what did the other ones say?
 
2- Are you assuming just because there are multiple posts, they all have one particular opinion?
 
3- You post here a whole lot... but never agree with J$... so if your assumption is that to post a lot, you must agree with the site host, you have proven yourself wrong.
 
Until I see other things that person has posted, I don't think it's unreasonable to rule out that pesky "Sarcasm" rearing its ugly head.
July 31, 2007, 9:28:33 AM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
You can keep bringing up stuff on Olbermann Watch, whether it's the Fox hater who wants to see Fox personnel executed, or this supposed child molestor posting, which you cite as some example of my being unfair because I took no action on it. EVEN AFTER I have said OVER AND OVER that I don't moderate comments there. IF I TYPE IT IN ALL CAPS WILL YOU THEN UNDERSTAND THAT?
 
If the O'Reilly threat post came from someone with a thousand previous comments, that makes it considerably more likely, though not certain, that it was no plant. That doesn't change the fact that someone at newshounds DID make the claim that was made. As I state right in my article, we don't know if he's telling the truth. 
 
> So I call O'Reilly something I get a post deleted but ranting against the "News Pups" and "Olbyloons" (sp?) is high comedy?
 
OK, now I have to ask you to put up. I have not, ever, deleted a comment simply because somebody called O'Reilly something. Such would not be a violation of our rules. Point out what you said, in what thread, and my reason for deleting it, if I did, so I can verify all this. I take that kind of charge seriously and I HOPE you aren't just making up a smear. (I hope you address this, because in the past it's at this point that your often stop replying and vanish from the thread.)
July 31, 2007, 9:38:39 AM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Um, sknabt, are you going to reply? Are you still here?
August 1, 2007, 1:03:19 PM EDT – Like – Reply


sknabt
“Um, sknabt, are you going to reply? Are you still here?”
 
Let me guess. Your “Internet Debate for Dummies” book claims the last person who posted wins so you’re getting ready to do your victory happy dance. 
 
“You can keep bringing up stuff on Olbermann Watch, whether it's the Fox hater who wants to see Fox personnel executed, or this supposed child molestor posting, which you cite as some example of my being unfair because I took no action on it. EVEN AFTER I have said OVER AND OVER that I don't moderate comments there. IF I TYPE IT IN ALL CAPS WILL YOU THEN UNDERSTAND THAT?”
 
Yeah and maybe if I type real slow you’ll understand my previous response. 
 
J$, when your spin suited the moment you sanctimoniously pounded your chest that so-called “hate” comments are a moral issue. Now your morality conveniently gets kicked to the curb as your hypocritical spin for the moment shifts like the wind. There seems to be no moral qualms whatsoever being an active blogger on an immoral (your standards) web site.
 
“If the O'Reilly threat post came from someone with a thousand previous comments, that makes it considerably more likely, though not certain, that it was no plant. That doesn't change the fact that someone at newshounds DID make the claim that was made. As I state right in my article, we don't know if he's telling the truth.” 
 
Yeah, he’s probably a member of a long-term liberal sleeper hate cell. 
 
Grasp any straw. Ride any hope. But, remember, never yield an inch. 
 
Let’s cut out all the malarkey, J$. We’re talking human nature. Liberal, conservative, and in between all are capable the entire range of human emotions. When Bill O’Reilly tries to pretend liberals have cornered the market on hate he’s set himself up to be easily proved a liar. I don’t recommend wasting your credibility trying to parrot him.
 
”OK, now I have to ask you to put up. I have not, ever, deleted a comment simply because somebody called O'Reilly something. Such would not be a violation of our rules.”
 
No problem. From your rules which state “J$P: Comments that violate the rules will be deleted!” comes this standard:
 
“No juvenilia. We've had our fill of the insipid FNC insult phrases that pervade the cybersphere, and they will not be permitted here. These include, but are not limited to, such knee-slappers as 'Faux News', 'O'Lielly', 'David Ass-Man', and the like.”
 
Do I need to explain any more of your rules to you? 
.
August 1, 2007, 10:23:00 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
> When Bill O’Reilly tries to pretend liberals have cornered the market on hate he’s set himself up to be easily proved a liar.
 
Considering that he just did an entire segment on hate speech at freerepublic.com, what you just typed not only makes zero sense, but it is patently untrue. Do you want to justify it or just admit that it's false?
 
> Do I need to explain any more of your rules to you?
 
Oh, so are you saying you deliberately broke one of the rules, and then you use THAT to accuse me of being unfair? Because I didn't give you a special exemption so that everyone has to follow the rules but not you? THAT was your argument that proves how unfair I am? I though you were better than such transparent sophistry.
August 1, 2007, 10:41:47 PM EDT – Like – Reply


sknabt
"Considering that he just did an entire segment on hate speech at freerepublic.com, what you just typed not only makes zero sense, but it is patently untrue. Do you want to justify it or just admit that it's false?"
 
I have seen Bill O'Reilly on several occassions claim hate is solely the province of liberals. In one comical flip-flop, he was busy bashing Air America while hypocritically defending all of conservative talk radio when Ellis Henican mentioned Michael Savage. Even right-wing O'Reilly had to say "you got me" on that one.
 
I surely hope this latest episode is like the Ellis Henican one where O'Reilly's hypocritical feet are held to the fire because, as I said previously, it is impossible to play the game liberals are evil while conservative are angels. And that's exactly the game he was playing with his hypocritical DailyKos-bashing.
 
And even forgetting who's posting what where, Bill O'Reilly is a hopeless liberal basher. Unlike you, I don't just shotgun around the "liar" label but in Bill's case I can easily justify it because he lies at least once every day he's on the air when he says "you've entered the no spin zone."
 
"Oh, so are you saying you deliberately broke one of the rules, and then you use THAT to accuse me of being unfair? Because I didn't give you a special exemption so that everyone has to follow the rules but not you? THAT was your argument that proves how unfair I am? I though you were better than such transparent sophistry."
 
This is a nice example of you twisting the facts. My point is you've got double-standard rules which threaten people with getting their posts deleted for actions you commit. Undeniable fact. Ah, heck, my previous explanation was clear enough:
 
"I'm not going to defend death threats. While I don't take any of the posts I've seen thus far on the topic seriously, technically they cross the line. But the problem with deleting hate speech is where do you draw the line? The rules on your blog prevent calling folks YOU like names. However, there doesn't appear to be much reservation on your part to crank up the flamethrower against liberals. So I call O'Reilly something I get a post deleted but ranting against the "News Pups" and 'Olbyloons' (sp?) is high comedy?"
 
Just so you don't miss it the second time 'round, the last sentence was posted as a question not a statement of fact. Maybe you care to answer it.
.
August 1, 2007, 11:56:35 PM EDT – Like – Reply


sknabt
"1- Just because that person has 1000+ posts, what did the other ones say?"
 
I'm not sure your point. 
 
Bill O'Reilly's smearing DailyKos. He can't find anything in their blog posts to smear them with so he uses the dirty trick of claiming a few data-mined "hate" comments mean DailyKos promotes hate.
 
Naturally, liberal bloggers return the favor and find some similar posts on his site.
 
His snappy retort is they're liberal plants. A plant with 1,000 messages? The content is irrelevant, IMHO.
 
"2- Are you assuming just because there are multiple posts, they all have one particular opinion?"
 
No, I could care less. Why? Did Bill O'Reilly verify the "hate" posts at DailyKos were genuine? His equally dishonest Foxy buddy, John Gibson, didn't do any investigative reporting on his part either to verify the identities of the commenters he used to smear ThinkProgress and MediaMatters.
 
I think I've made my point quite clear to J$ that this line of liberal-bashing is a joke because commenters can't be identified. We don't know anything about them so why place any credence in what outrageous things they say? Unless all you want to do is flamethrower the other side.
 
"3- You post here a whole lot... but never agree with J$... so if your assumption is that to post a lot, you must agree with the site host, you have proven yourself wrong."
 
That's not my claim. 
 
"Until I see other things that person has posted, I don't think it's unreasonable to rule out that pesky 'Sarcasm' rearing its ugly head."
 
I made myself perfectly clear that I don't take any of the death threats seriously. J$ seems to take liberal "hate" on faith while not yielding on the conservative variety.
 
However, if Bill O'Reilly, as J$ suggests, is now doing an about-face and posting some "no spin" commentary actually daring to criticize the right maybe it'll become okay for J$ to parrot the same sentiment. 
.
August 2, 2007, 12:26:06 AM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
> I have seen Bill O'Reilly on several occassions claim hate is solely the province of liberals.
 
Thank you for sharing that, but I believe my question was about the fact that he just did an entire segment on hate speech at freerepublic.com. You claimed he is a liar because he says only liberal sites have hate speech. That is simply and obviously false given what he just broadcast yesterday. So I ask again? Do you admit that what you said (Bill claims only libs "cornered the market" on hate speech) is untrue?
 
> You've got double-standard rules which threaten people with getting their posts deleted for actions you commit
 
Oh my terribly onerous rules. It's just SOOO hard to say anything here because they just stifle the great creativity of Fox haters. As I've noted before, you post at the newshounds, who delete comments for no reasons whatsoever, except that they disagree with them, or point out untruths in their postings. I haven't seen you complain on their site, probably because you realize they would probably delete it!
 
> for actions you commit
 
Really? Can you cite an example? I would be very surprised if you could find any comment by me where I broke my own comment rules. But, hey, I'm willing to be surprised. Let's hear it.
August 2, 2007, 12:39:03 AM EDT – Like – Reply


ImNotBlue
sknabt, I like the "I've never seen" line... and anytime someone like O'Reilly doesn't fit your pre-determined mold of what he should or should not say, he's "getting caught." He did a full segment on it... interviewed the guy, made him look like a dope, and sent him on his way. Even quoted (or I guess you'd say, "Cherry picked") hateful posts from the site.
 
But perhaps you didn't understand my questions... especially because you seem to just shrug them off.
 
The guy has 1000+ posts, so what? They could all be right-wing posts... they could all be left-wing posts, and this one done in sarcasm. It could be any number of things... and pointing simply to the fact that he has a lot of posts, isn't evidence or proof of anything at all.
 
In fact, unless the website has a specific log in... He could be pretending to be someone he's not!
August 2, 2007, 5:08:16 PM EDT – Like – Reply


sknabt
See… I’m not you! I don’t use smiley faces, like I’m trying to atrack a 12-year-old girl, at the end of all my paragraphs.
August 2, 2007, 5:08:48 PM EDT – Like – Reply


ImNotBlue
The point is… you’re making a whole lot of assumptions in this story… but I guess because it fits the ideas you already had… you’re willing to fill in the blanks.
August 2, 2007, 5:09:24 PM EDT – Like – Reply