1/6/09 12:37 PM

'There Were People, But Not You'

J$P Audio! O'Reilly grills McClellan, Scott backpedals, fireworks ensue:


From The Radio Factor, July 29 2008




Billy
Now that McClellan has clarified what he said, I'm sure that Olbermann, who really pushed this story, will issue a correction.
 
NOT!
July 29, 2008, 1:57:47 PM EDT – Like – Reply


tony
Some how I doubt that we are going to hear this reported on MSNBC
July 29, 2008, 2:00:44 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Excellent points. Will MSNBC report McClellan in effect "clearing" O'Reilly? Will they ignore it and pretend it never happened? Or will they plop McClellan in front of Matthews in the hopes that Chris can browbeat him into reversing himself again?
July 29, 2008, 2:04:14 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Joe
The damage is all ready done. Just google this stuff and you will see it is all over the internet. Mr. McClellan knew what he was saying when he said it. He could've corrected himself but it didn't. It will always be believed by the left the Fox is in the box with R and other right wing people. I'm glad Bill had a chance to defend this lie.
July 29, 2008, 3:23:30 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Billy
Olby will do exactly what he did with last week's lie-- the one about O'Reilly and the Florida income tax. Rather than correcting himself, he'll simply come up with a new one.
July 29, 2008, 3:29:16 PM EDT – Like – Reply


treyevans
thanks for the insight, allahpundit....errr... i mean joe
July 29, 2008, 3:35:58 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Uhhh
What about the fact that he said others did get talking points? Kind of puts to bed this whole Fox is Fair and Balanced lie now doesn't it. Game. Set. Match.
July 29, 2008, 4:43:06 PM EDT – Like – Reply


tony
What about the fact that he said others did get talking points? Kind of puts to bed this whole Fox is Fair and Balanced lie now doesn't it. Game. Set. Match.
Uhhh | 07.29.08 - 4:48 pm | #  
--------------------------------------
 
Game, Set, Match? Maybe in your mind. Let him name names, which I doubt will happen.
July 29, 2008, 5:15:08 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Dan Tanna
Keith will reissue a retraction when pigs fly.
 
And last I looked out my window, I didnt see any pigs...
I saw pidgeons, I mean flying rats, close cousins of KO's, but, no pigs.
July 29, 2008, 5:24:20 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Fred
Uhhh, it meanst nothing about Fox in specifics, and if it did, so freaking what?
 
It said persons sympathetic to the cause.
 
I get press releases from local pols all the time, so what? I go with my own opinion not regurgitated crap from someone else.

Edited By Siteowner
July 29, 2008, 5:34:18 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Guest
What about the fact that he said others did get talking points? Kind of puts to bed this whole Fox is Fair and Balanced lie now doesn't it. Game. Set. Match.
 
He didn't say "others". He said "commentators".
 
Then he agreed when Matthews said "Bill and Sean."
 
Only now he's retracting the Bill part.
 
Which leaves us with Sean.
 
To stick with the sports metaphor, you got no game.
July 29, 2008, 5:46:57 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Brad
Ummm so flipin' what? The whitehouse issues talking points... WOW! I'm SHOCKED! Doesn't mean they use them. I'm sure the Democrats would NEVER do something so horrible as issue talking points ... I guess it's just dumb luck (no pun intended) that the exact same phrases from Pelosi, Reid, Obama appear time after time in the DKos, MyDD, HuffPo, NYT....  
 
As for Fox being "Fair and Balanced".. most reasonable people will agree they lean right... but they are more fair and more "balanced" than any other network. They almost always have liberals and conservative commentators who give alternate points of view. When was the last time you saw a conservative (or anyone who disagreed with him) on Olbermann's show? Fox may be right, but at least they are not an echo chamber...
July 29, 2008, 5:47:51 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
The silliness of this is that the truth IS just what McClellan said. The WH, pols of both parties, the RNC and the DNC, and advocacy groups routinely fax talking-points to all the network news analysis shows and the cable ones as well. They do the same thing to the print media.
 
Whether any of these faxes make it onto the desk of anyone significant, is another matter altogether.
 
The entire episode is just a silly sort of CYA subterfuge trick by Chris Matthews, because he's being labeled as being "in the tank for Obama" by virtually EVERYONE, including the group at FNC.  
 
Matthews knew he could bank on McClellan publicly affirming what McClellan knew that Chris was well aware of in the first place. Matthews knew too that as regarding FNC, many folks would pretend that this "news" was something unusual and singular.
 
Feigning this sort of surprise is disingenuous of Matthews and FNC critics, but it's downright pathologically dishonest of Olbermann, who conducts his entire show as a one-sided McCain bashing talking-point campaign advertisement.
July 29, 2008, 5:49:11 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Excellent points. Will MSNBC report McClellan in effect "clearing" O'Reilly? Will they ignore it and pretend it never happened? Or will they plop McClellan in front of Matthews in the hopes that Chris can browbeat him into reversing himself again?
johnny dollar | Homepage | 07.29.08 - 2:09 pm |
 
They'll mock and invalidate it.  
 
Perhaps they should. McClellan's explanation for why he repeatedly cried "Certainly!" to Matthew's questions sounded like BS to me.
 
However, it won't be McClellan who's targeted...
July 29, 2008, 6:04:12 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Well I have to give MSNBC some credit. They did a segment on McClellan's retraction/apology tonight on Hardball. Now Matthews wasn't there; the sub-host was Mike "Plagiarist" Barnicle. But even Joan Walsh from Salon.com (?) or HuffPo (?), one or the other, had to concede this story had flopped but good.
 
But that's just Hardball, a show that isn't exactly the most-watched on the channel. What will their Big Dog do at 8:00 tonight? He's the one who set off the furor doing a full segment about O'Reilly parroting McClellan's talking points, so he's the one who has the responsibility to set it right.
July 29, 2008, 6:13:44 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Johnny, it's so adorable that you've enough boyish innocence and optimism to wonder if Olbermann will apologize...
July 29, 2008, 6:20:59 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Dan Tanna
Dont knook optimism  
 
But, since I live in Vegas....
I wouldnt bet on a proposition on KO issuing an apology.
IF, he does....it will probably be wrapped around an attack.
July 29, 2008, 6:30:25 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Just added a link to video of that Hardball segment.
July 29, 2008, 7:41:30 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
> Johnny, it's so adorable that you've enough boyish innocence and optimism to wonder if Olbermann will apologize...
 
Nah, not really. If I had to put money down, I'd say if Oralmann does anything, it will be to attack Bill for beating up on poor Scott, accuse him of putting words in McClellan's mouth, etc etc. No it doesn't make one minute of sense, but then it's Olbermann.
July 29, 2008, 7:45:57 PM EDT – Like – Reply


melu
Scott's Mother is just as crazy which proves the nut does not fall far from the tree.
July 29, 2008, 7:55:44 PM EDT – Like – Reply


olby sucks
This guy comes from a site I was banned from. Because nobody is allowed to disagree with the owner of the site or his 8 sheep that kiss his ass regularly.
john t | Homepage | 07.29.08 - 8:07 pm | #  
 
I posted a link to the O'Reilly/McClellan interview and this is the "thanks" I get. Shocker!
July 29, 2008, 8:13:32 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
John t thinks he can use foul language, call other posters names, and post about anything he wants regardless of the topic. And he's complaining about a short stint on Exile Island? Man, some people have thin skins. I'm tempted to extend his exile by a day just for that!
July 29, 2008, 8:16:03 PM EDT – Like – Reply


The Factor
I'm betting Olbermann reads a "transcript" of the O'Reilly and McClellan interview from New Hounds. The "transcript" will have words and phases not heard by human ears over the radio.
July 29, 2008, 9:26:01 PM EDT – Like – Reply


The Factor
Johnny$ we need a video of Olbermann saying O'Reilly gets talking points and then McClellan apologizing to O'Reilly and then Olbermann saying "we're dreadfully Sorry".  
Thanks
July 29, 2008, 9:48:18 PM EDT – Like – Reply


olby sucks
Bill O'Reilly Saves Face By Humiliating Scott McClellan
Reported by Deborah - Tue 11:00 PM
 
I was wondering how they were going to spin this. Soooo predictable!
July 29, 2008, 11:11:13 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Joe D.
Deborah, the only two things one can deduse is that it took Mc Clellan 3 minutes to apologize, even afer listening to his own words. The second is your knee jerk response and ad hominum attack that was soooo predictable!
July 29, 2008, 11:45:22 PM EDT – Like – Reply


notveryhow
heard a clip of Mr O'Really on F&F this morning. Does anyone think that he has the stones to address someone to their face that way. What a wuss,insulting people on the telephone.
July 30, 2008, 8:11:36 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Mark
Given O'Reilly's history, I would say that insulting someone is one of the more acceptable forms of his conduct on the telephone.
July 30, 2008, 9:27:56 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
O'Relly insulted Obama's body guard to his face and when visiting The View, his aggressive planting of 30 seconds long kisses on the women there (generally while bending them over backwards) have left even Joy smirching like a possum (if not Andrea Mackris), oh Blog Buds...  
 

July 30, 2008, 11:22:21 AM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Cecelia, weren't you aware of the 'fact' that O'Reilly only confronts people on the phone? He never raises his voice or calls them out face to face on tv. He doesn't have the 'stones' to do it. In fact, on tv O'Reilly makes Larry King look like a pit bull. Remember how he let Geraldo walk over him and never even raised his voice?
 
At least that's the meme until circumstances require that they return to the 'O'Reilly just had a meltdown on tv' routine.
July 30, 2008, 11:28:13 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
I wouldn't attach the status of "meme" to nvh's remark, Johnny.
 
He was just doing the straight man set-up routine for Mark's pa-dum-pum...
July 30, 2008, 11:45:36 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Mark
For what it is worth, I don't agree with nvh's assessment. O'Reilly is a classic bully, and he is as big a bully on the set as he is on the phone. I imagine he is a bully in person, too. Now, if someone turned around and glared with a game face, I wouldn't be surprised if O'Reilly were to run.

Edited By Siteowner
July 30, 2008, 11:57:21 AM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Several msgs nuked because Mark slyly injected politics into his comment and people responded.
July 30, 2008, 12:54:49 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Mike C.
Thank you very much.
July 30, 2008, 1:22:31 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Danny
Mark,
 
Actually, your opinion on this matter is not worth spit. As subsequent events and subsequent commentary . . . even on MEET THE PRESS . . . have demonstrated you have been utterly and completely wrong on everything you have said about BOR and McClellan. I almost feel sorry for you.  
 
Apparently, you want to continue in your denial of facts and logic and spout opinions that have little relation to the truth.  
 
O'Reilly has more guts than you give him credit for. Certainly he has more than ten times the intestinal fortitude of Chris Matthews Olbermann put together. Of course, they are (in your little Matrix-like dream world) unworthy of mention of being bullies.
 
There is evidence that Chris Matthews knew that BOR was not giving commentary that was scripted by someone else. Even his colleagues on the very next MEET THE PRESS show said they didn't think the BOR's commentary was scripted. Despite the fact that Matthews knew better, he badgered a weak McClellan to speak words that might give people who don't listen very well (you for instance) that impression. That is classic bullying.
 
Olbermann was even worse. Behind BOR;s back (not even face to face), he accused BOR of doing scripted commentary. Not only is Olby an a$ because he knew that wasn't true, his comments were also assinine because he (uncritically) does scripted commentary. Johnny Dollar his demonstrated this when he demonstrated that Olbermann gave commentary taken directly from Newshounds, errors and all.
Olbermann's action is the epitome of hypocrisy, gutlessness . . . and yes bullying.
 
To summarize: your opinion on this matter is not worth spit . . . BOR has much intestinal fortitude and is not a bully . . . Matthews and Olbermann have little or no intestinal fortitude and have bullying down to a fine art.
July 30, 2008, 1:26:39 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Mark
Thank you for the insight, Danny.
 
And, you are correct, in the sense "bully" is a term seen mostly through the eye of the beholder.
 
Matthews belittles people, far too often, but he does so in a dismissive sense, not the screaming, tremor-inducing sort of anger that we have seen with O'Reilly (in his predecessor gossip show and with Geraldo). And, we often see O'Reilly as dismissive. So, yes, I think he is a bully. I should add, however, and this may be more to your point, the Geraldo episode was so patently silly that I viewed it as more farcical than angry bullying. I was laughing, not quivering. But, Farkus always makes me laugh as well.
 
As for Olbermann, I don't know enough about his body of work to determine if he is a bully. He has always struck me as more of a groveling suck-up, but, as I say, I kbow very little about his work.
 
As always, thank you for a provovative post. You are one of the reasons I return.
July 30, 2008, 3:02:23 PM EDT – Like – Reply


olby sucks
At least you agree you are always wrong. Kudos!
July 30, 2008, 3:24:32 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Danny
Mark,
 
I am not as quick to consider words to be subjective as you are. From your 12:02 post, I thought you were very clear about your definition of a bully . . . particularly a classic bully.
 
Extrapolating from your (12:02) post you seemed to define bully as follows: one who is aggressively manipulative towards weak people, but who is at heart a coward. The the first time the bully is even mildly challenged, he will run away.
 
I still stand by what I said. By your definition, Matthews and Olbermann are both belligerent cowards; therefore they fit YOUR definition while BOR does not.
 
I understand your wanting to muddy up your definition in your 3:07 post . . . rather than simply admitting that your were wrong . . . just as you were grossly wrong in our past "dialog" (as you put it) on this subject.  
 
So, go ahead, obfuscate all you want. As I have told you before, I really am not baffled by your BS.
 
You comments in your 12:02 post are still dead wrong . . . of course, being wrong fits in with everything else you have said about BOR and McClellan.
July 30, 2008, 4:14:00 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Mark
I'll have to cede the Olbermann point, Danny, as you seem to know much, much more about him than I. And, I'll also note that there may be some basis for buying into O'Reilly's screed. Since I don't find him credible, on the whole, I am less likely to do so.
 
Of course, none of that means I am wrong and you are right, or vice-versa. On any number of mainstream, middle of the road or liberal blogs, your view would be routinely considered wrong. In posting at this site, I do so with full knowledge that the forces of the Far Right will take strong exception to my posts. I have no problem with that at all.
 
By the way, one of the calmer, more prudent, wise and articulate voices at FNC is Michael Barone. I don't always buy into his analysis, and I tend to think his analystical models sometimes show their age, but he has an excellent article, a careful analysis, in the current issue of USN. I recommend it.
July 30, 2008, 4:34:59 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Danny
Of course, none of that means I am wrong and you are right, or vice-versa. On any number of mainstream, middle of the road or liberal blogs, your view would be routinely considered wrong.
 
Frankly, I don't give a damn what other blogs might or might not say. As one sage put it: 1,000 people can say a wrong thing and it is still wrong.
 
The fact is that I have demonstrated that you are objectively (not subjectively) wrong through facts and logic. If you have a thoughtful argument (based on facts and logic) to defend your position, let's hear it. Otherwise, just be man enough to admit that you are wrong and that you really have nothing thoughtful to say on this subject . . . then cede the floor to those who do.
July 30, 2008, 4:55:03 PM EDT – Like – Reply


notveryhow
johnny dollar | Homepage | 07.30.08 - 11:33 am |
 
So O'Reilly confronts people on the street with the same vehemence that he attacks people on the phone? A veritable icon of bad-ass confrontation.
 
It is easy to be arrogant and insulting on the phone or on the web ("your opinion on this matter is not worth spit."). I postulate that one can also pull of this trick in a TV studio,with cameras and security nearby.But take it to the streets?
 
I've been around enough people that don't ascribe to the idea of 'turn the other cheek' to know that Mr O'Reilly's act would not fly in the real world.I've seen my share of pompous blowhards go down hard, and Bill doesn't look like he has the heart for that kind of real world interaction.
 
I also don't think he's dumb enough to push his act in the real world. If he was he'd have been kneecapped years ago. There is a difference between theatrics in the studio or on the phone,and theatrics at your local bar.
July 30, 2008, 5:36:45 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Now we've shifted the goalposts away from the original claim (it's not 'to his face') to goalposts 2.0: that it has to be 'on the street'. So that's a concession that your earlier claim (he would never do it 'to his face') was highly incorrect, ergo you've had to shift to a new one.
 
> I also don't think he's dumb enough to push his act in the real world. If he was he'd have been kneecapped years ago.
 
Yeah, Bill's still recovering from the injuries he sustained from Barack Obama's security guy. LOL!
July 30, 2008, 5:47:41 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Mark
I do envy you, Danny. What a wonderful feeling it must be to know that you are correct about absolutely everything.
---
Thank you, nvh, for your latest analysis. One has to conclude that the Talking Points and bullying matters of recent days have exposed a soft underbelly of FNC and its most vocal fans. The shrillness, the screeds, the self-righteousness we see and hear are revelatory in some profound sense. I think we have at long lost found the raison d'etre for the FNC apologists and defenders. What is amazing to me is that I don't find what has happened all the objectionable. I've said before, there is nothing wrong with an aligned media. In fact, it could be a great strength when we understand the alignment. What I have come to think in the clanging cymbals and blasting horns of the last couple of days is that the FNC fans require that illusion of fairness and balance. To them, but I think to no one else, without that claim, without that veneer, they have lost legitimacy. I don't really understand why they feel that way. But, I also think that without that veneer, they must think their "cause," the underlying philosophy FNC props up suffers as well. I am amazed at that as well. I view conservatism as a legitimate philosophical and political holding, despite the fact I often disagree with those conservative principles not shared by, not over-lapping American liberalism (and the points of instersection, Americanism itself, is a broad avenue. If I can see the strength in the philosophy, why can't they? Why the crippling self-doubt that seeks recovery in loud acrimony and martinette strutting? I have no answers, just puzzlement.
July 30, 2008, 6:12:42 PM EDT – Like – Reply


olby sucks
Since I don't find him (Bill O'Reilly) credible,
 
by mark
 
Based on?
July 30, 2008, 6:21:34 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Danny
Mark,
 
You have no reason to envy me. Just yesterday, I admitted that I made a mistake and retracted it. Converesly, you have demonstrated your extreme reluctance to admit your mistakes even when you have been clearly proven wrong. You don't even have the stones to go back to the Olbermann site and correct a mistake you yourself have said you made there.
 
No Mark it is your arrogance that reigns supreme. Whenever you accuse someone else of arrogance you are only projecting and accusing others of your own faults.
 
I am also getting tired of your "big lie" propagandizing method that was invented (at least popularized) by Goebels, Hitler's propaganda minister.
 
Your assertion about BOR's being a bully and about Fox's being an aligned network have been totally refuted by facts and logic. You have offered no thoughtful counterargument based on facts and logic.  
 
Yet you just keep repeating your lies over and over again as if they have not been thoroughly nuked . . . in a way that would make both Stalin and Hitler proud.
 
Tell me once again. Who is the Stalinist? When you accused someone else of being that . . . were you once again projecting?
July 30, 2008, 6:41:08 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Mark
I recommend Bullock's HITLER AND STALIN: PARALLEL LIVES, Danny, since you are so keen on them. I think you'll find it an enjoyable read.
 
Let me know about the book!
July 30, 2008, 7:18:41 PM EDT – Like – Reply


vstol
Lost in the "How can anyone be right when everybody's wrong?" are some simple truths.
 
Nobody's perfect.  
 
Whether an individual, a company, a government official, a web site or a news organazation, credibility is essential.
 
Accuracy is a goal.
 
Promptly admitting mistakes and making ammends is imperitive to maintaining credibility.
 
If the above is accepted, it is an easy task to determine which cable news organazations (or websites) are credible.
July 30, 2008, 7:20:01 PM EDT – Like – Reply


notveryhow
johnny dollar | Homepage | 07.30.08 - 5:52 pm |
 
Well, ya got me there.I guess Mr O'Reilly is as big a jerk in person as he is on the phone. But I gotta ask;you find that kind of behavior admirable?
 
Mark, I have been noting a profound "circling the wagons" attitude from Fox the past few weeks.Just about every morning F&F are going after some one that they percieve has said something negative about Fox (whether they have or not).  
 
I think they are hardening their audience for the coming sea-change in American attitudes,presenting themselves as different,and persecuted, by the so-called liberal media.I've seen this since Nixon,when the news is bad,attack the messenger.
 
But just like Nixon,who's approval rating at the end still hovered around 20%, I don't think Fox will lose their core audience. It just won't grow.
July 30, 2008, 7:37:28 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
OK so if he does confront people he's a jerk. If he doesn't he's a coward. That is probably the most revealing thing we've heard yet from you. Thanks for posting it.
July 30, 2008, 7:43:06 PM EDT – Like – Reply


notveryhow
"OK so if he does confront people he's a jerk. If he doesn't he's a coward."
 
Based on my posts,by what logic did you reach that conclusion?
July 30, 2008, 7:45:31 PM EDT – Like – Reply


notveryhow
[message deleted for rules violation: off-topic]

Edited By Siteowner
July 30, 2008, 7:52:25 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
"Based on my posts,by what logic did you reach that conclusion?"
 
Based on your words:
 
> Does anyone think that he has the stones to address someone to their face that way. What a wuss,insulting people on the telephone.
 
> Well, ya got me there.I guess Mr O'Reilly is as big a jerk in person as he is on the phone.
 
Now don't try to squirm out of what you wrote, or people might get the wrong impression about your 'stones'.
July 30, 2008, 7:53:00 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Danny
Mark,
 
Thanks for the (unsolicited and off topic) advice. Of course, I already knew that Hitler and Stalin were "moral mirror images: as it says on the jacket of the book. 
 
I am less concerned about Stalin and Hitler than I am concerned about the following: you called someone a Stalinist . . .you now admit that it was a mistake . . . yet, you are unwilling to retract the mistake where it was made.
 
I am also concerned that when your assertions have been rebutted (actually thoroughly refuted)n that you offer no substantive counter argument; rather you just keep repeating the same unsubstantiated assertion over and over again.
 
Not only is your practice a little disrespectful (you're saying, "I am just going to ignore your reply and go on"), it also reminds me of the "big lie" technique of propagandizing; that is, you just keep repeating the same lie over and over. Don't try to defend your assertion with facts and logic . . . just pretend that your assertion is obvous. You hope that you will finally wear the opposition down and the people will accept your unsubstantiated assertion . . . your lie . . . as the truth.
 
Both Stalin and Hitler (whom your book describes as being "moral mirror images of each other") used that technique. Now you are using it too. Are you liking the company your keeping?
 
Maybe you should be especially careful about calling others Stalinists when you are clearly aping Stalin and Hitler. Most people who understand projection will begin to wonder about you.,
July 30, 2008, 7:57:16 PM EDT – Like – Reply


notveryhow
johnny dollar | Homepage | 07.30.08 - 7:58 pm |
 
Yes, I said he's a jerk (or behaves like one for ratings).So where did I state,or imply,that "If he doesn't he's a coward."
 
But I ask you again, do you find that kind of behavior admirable? Or responsible? He sent his crew out to ambush Vermont's governor, asking (I paraphrase), "Why are you coddling pedophiles". Do you really think that this will lead to a discussion of criminal penalties? How would you react if it were you?
July 30, 2008, 7:59:21 PM EDT – Like – Reply


notveryhow
Yet you just keep repeating your lies over and over again in a way that would make both Stalin and Hitler proud.Don't take that wrong, it's not a personal attack
 
The game is rigged,the bats are corked, and the ump only calls strikes on one side.One fella always threatens to take his ball and go home, and another thinks he's safe because he say's so. I love baseball,but I'm really sick of this game.
July 30, 2008, 8:07:57 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
It wouldn't. I prosecuted pedophiles for 25 years, and have no brook for people who coddle them.
July 30, 2008, 8:08:02 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Ashley
It wouldn't. I prosecuted pedophiles for 25 years, and have no brook for people who coddle them.
johnny dollar | Homepage | 07.30.08 - 8:13 pm | # 
 
I didn't know that about you. Wow. Excellent. (and from my corner of civilized society, may I say "Thank you!".
July 30, 2008, 8:12:17 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Danny
NVH,
 
You a$blanks are real nerds. When you are old and gray (oh wait I forgot you attack Fox so you already are) will the time spent here attacking fox news be a rewarding memory. Will you grand kids gather around and listen to you war stories about this utter BS Life is short. Get one.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 
NOte: The above is a slightly altered (the original was much worse) comment that appeared on these boards before being deleted. 
 
It is typical of undeleted comments that are found on NH's boards and of the type of verbal abuse you might expect to find there, if your comments are not in their view PC. This is really significant because you hang out there a lot so you should be used to this kind of verbal abuse.
 
Since you pretend not to know what a real personal attack is, I thought I would help you out.
July 30, 2008, 8:22:23 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
OK so if he does confront people he's a jerk. If he doesn't he's a coward. That is probably the most revealing thing we've heard yet from you. Thanks for posting it.
johnny dollar | Homepage | 07.30.08 - 7:48 pm | # 
 
And yesterday one of them was lauding a thoughtful opinion piece that accused FNC and some prominent conservatives of fomenting cold-blooded murder. 
 
Today it's a mere circling of the wagons over 'changing times' and a loss of legitimacy... the OBJECTIVE fact of McClellan apologizing and confirming the denials...not withstanding... (You're talking to bugs floating in dishwater in trying to get that sort of thing across, Danny. Move your hand to their spot and they drift away...)
 
All in a day's work for our friends who gift we marginalized folks with their presence, Mr. Dollar. We and FNC take up enough space in their lives, ey...Johnny.... 
 

July 30, 2008, 8:37:00 PM EDT – Like – Reply


olby sucks
Most people who understand projection will begin to wonder about you.,
Danny | 07.30.08 - 8:02 pm | # 
 
Been there, done that.
>
 
One more time, sure to be ignored, proving danny and I right, again.
><
 
Since I don't find him (Bill O'Reilly) credible,
 
by mark
 
Based on?
July 30, 2008, 9:37:36 PM EDT – Like – Reply


olby sucks
"One fella always threatens to take his ball and go home,"
 
Ring any bells, Cecelia? A certain poster on OW?
July 30, 2008, 9:39:33 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
OS, I'm assuming you mean a leftwing guy of whom an anti-OW blog site described as being so inept at waging an argument that he had to be a Bob Cox formulated strawman sockpuppet...
July 30, 2008, 10:02:43 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Mark
The circling of the wagons is, indeed, leaving deep ruts, nvh. I hope the good guys can climb out of them, but it is more likely that those of whom we have spoken earlier, decidedly not the good guys, will be climbing over the bodies of the good guys. It tends to happen. 
 
That is pretty pessimistic, but I do actually have some hope that this will all have a purgative effect. That's a lot to hope for from the average Fox Fanatic, but the satisfaction from cleaning up your own mess can be immense.
July 30, 2008, 10:05:06 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Danny
Mark,
 
The circling of wagons is a really poor metaphor of what the Fox people are doing. It is more like the thundering charge of the light calvary.
 
Now that Fox critics like Matthews and Olbermann have been exposed for the liars and cowards they are . . . it is the Fox critics that are on the defensive.
 
Take yourself. The rug has been completely pulled out from under you. If there was any doubt that you were totally wrong in our previous "dialog", there can be no doubt now. Even the folks at MEET THE PRESS have jumped ship. You are left alone trying to cling to something . . . anything. 
 
You have nothing thoughtful to say on this subject. All you can do is say the same meaningless drivel over and over again with absolutely no facts or logic to substantiate what you are saying.
 
Like the energizer bunny, you never seem to tire. YOu just keep going on and on and on and on . . .
July 30, 2008, 10:24:35 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Like the energizer bunny, you never seem to tire. YOu just keep going on and on and on and on . . .
Danny | 07.30.08 - 10:29 pm | # 
 
Well, their using all matter of time and bandwidth in order to say we're obsolete, makes about as much sense as most of the stuff they venture here. At least they're consistent... 
July 30, 2008, 10:36:17 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Danny
Cecelia.
 
Yep, I think that it is Mark (and friends) who is definitely in a rut. And it just keeps getting deeper and deeper and deeper. Pity, I doubt that he will ever be able to climb out.
July 30, 2008, 10:39:17 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
He's a hardened sixties era new left type, Danny. He exemplifies the legend of the WWII Japanese commando still crawling through some tropical jungle...
July 30, 2008, 10:45:38 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Danny
Cecelia,
 
See, you have just proven one more time why you deserve to be commenter of the day!!!
July 30, 2008, 10:48:17 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
You're very kind, Danny, but everyone who has seen him in action for years is aware of this. I will say that he performs a value service in illustrating the concept of the true partisan zealot. It's not the Kos Kids with anger issues and a computer. The true picture is this guy.
July 30, 2008, 10:56:41 PM EDT – Like – Reply


olby sucks
Since I don't find him (Bill O'Reilly) credible,
 
by mark
 
Based on?
 
I've lost track of comments like this that 'mark' has made with absolutley nothing to back it up with.
 
Ceceila, the 'taking my ball and going home' line was used by 'mark' on OW under one of her countless names. I thought for sure you would remember! I think she used it on Grammie, most of the time. 
 
Speaking of Grammie, it's been too long! Hope things are well.
July 31, 2008, 12:36:37 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Grammie
HARK!! Did I hear my name mentioned?  
 
Good to be back. I got roped into a long and demanding baby sitting job that has blessedly come to an end. I love the little darlings but even I have my limits.
 
Danny, I admire your stamina and fortitude in dealing with the ever tedious and pedantic screeds by Monsieur Capon of the "stalinist" charges against Johnny and the celebrated Gang of Five.
August 1, 2008, 4:31:55 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Mark
Welcome back! I am all a twitter. My wife flew over for the end of business trip, and we spent a week in the Cotswolds. One blissfully sunny day I was sipping a Pimm's, munching on a Stilton and pear sandwich, dangling my feet in a clear, cold, shallow river, and my thoughts turned to you. You seem like you might be a Pimm's sort of gal.
August 1, 2008, 10:37:31 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Glad you're foot loose and fancy free again, Grammie!
August 1, 2008, 10:38:09 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
You have to admit, Grammie and Olby Sucks, even if sheer fantasy, in the dog days of summer right now, Mark's life sounds pretty damn good.
August 1, 2008, 10:40:45 AM EDT – Like – Reply