Rahm Emanuel apologizes -- sort of -- for 'retarded' remark
We read:
"A White House official emails that Rahm Emanuel has acknowledged calling liberal Democrats "retarded" and apologized for the remark.
"Rahm called Tim Shriver Wednesday to apologize and the apology was accepted," the official said.
Shriver is the Chairman and CEO of the Special Olympics, which has launched a campaign against what it calls "the R word."
The remark was first reported last week in the Wall Street Journal, and drew an extended attack from Sarah Palin.
Said the official, “The White House remains committed to addressing the concerns and needs of Americans living with disabilities and recognizes that derogatory remarks demean us all.”
UPDATE: A Democrat points out Rahm apologized to Shriver, but not to the liberals he called "retarded."
Source
Marvellous what you can get away with when you are a Democrat
43 comments:
"Shriver is the Chairman and CEO of the Special Olympics, which has launched a campaign against what it calls "the R word."
---Give me a break, the word "retarded" is better than "idiot" or "imbecile" which is what we used to call them in the 19th century.
Maybe we need a dictionary of banned words so we all know which ones not to use. Of course, by the time all the offended put in their chosen taboo words, there won't be enough left for us to convey any meaningful thought!
Here's the funny thing about this. The libs are the guilty ones when it comes to pushing this PC crap on us. Now they're getting a taste of their own medicine, and from the looks of things, it doesn't taste very good. I have no problem calling someone a "retard" if it's deserved due to behavior or ideology (which is why all libs are retards, err, libtards). In any case, I have to say, I'm enjoying watching Rahm choke on this dose of PC medicine.
"Marvellous what you can get away with when you are a Democrat"
Isn't it though!
What I find funny is that he used the "f word." So does anybody get mad for him using vulgar language? Nooooooo ... seems the word 'retard' is the worst thing here. Seriously, does everybody in the world now think it's ok to use profanity in everyday language? I'm not to that point yet.
I noticed that he apologized to retards for comparing them to liberal activists. That was the real insult.
Anonymous 4:04. You are right on point.
But the libtards do go crazy about the f word, when a republican says it. Remember Dick Chaney?
Also the definition of "Retard" is:
To cause to move or proceed slowly; delay or impede
lets hope the careers of the majority of congress are Retarded real soon!
"To cause to move or proceed slowly; delay or impede"
---Exactly! Which is why there shouldn't be a Special Olympics in the first place. Who wants to watch a bunch of slowpokes running, swimming, and whatever else they do? It's ridiculous, no different than those school soccer matches where they don't keep score and everyone gets a medal in the end.
I'll bet that's the first time Rommel Emanual has told the truth.
Bobby clearly said, "Who wants to watch a bunch of slowpokes running, swimming, and whatever else they do?"
THEN DON'T WATCH IT, YOU RETARD!
---Exactly! Which is why there shouldn't be a Special Olympics in the first place.
Translation: "I am so clumsy that I can't qualify for the "normal" sporting events, but am so inept that the kid with palsy beats me in a race."
Who wants to watch a bunch of slowpokes running, swimming, and whatever else they do?
Translation: "I don't know anything about the Special Olympics or any other athletic event such as Little League's Challenger Division, but I will demonstrate my ignorance by once again opening my mouth."
It's ridiculous, no different than those school soccer matches where they don't keep score and everyone gets a medal in the end.
Translation: "Since I can't get out of my parent's basement, I will just be jealous of those who get an award. I didn't get a cookie when I went to 1st grade the other day and I am pissed."
"THEN DON'T WATCH IT, YOU RETARD!"
---I did watch it once, and I heard the announcer yelling "Go Justin, Go Robbie, Go Peter, go Alex, go go go go, you're all so good, go go go."
I wanted to puke. I had a friend who was legally blind, I never treated him like he was special or needed my help and he was GRATEFUL for it. In fact, most retarded people don't want to be treated like they're special yet their parents and stupid social worker encourage them to make an ass of themselves in the Special Olympics while the announcer treats them like well, a bunch of retards. So sad.
Hey 8:40 AM, I live in a CONDO! We have a parking structure, no basement.
8:27 AM
WORD OF THE DAY
RETARD, n.
A venerable school yard putdown, it’s the latest rhetorical cause celebre, according to thin-skinned, chronically oppressed, whiners who bitterly cling to a mythical ‘right’ that protects them from being offended.
In fact, most retarded people don't want to be treated like they're special yet their parents and stupid social worker encourage them to make an ass of themselves in the Special Olympics
So your point of view is based on your experience with one blind friend who was not developmentally challenged in any way?
Unbelieveable.
There is a difference in that in the Special Olympics, kids and adults who were never able to compete in anything athletic because of such buttholes like you are given a chance to play a game; to run a race; to train; to do something other than be pushed in a corner by idiots like you.
The Special Olympics isn't about the competition - it is about the effort.
You don't understand that for some reason.
The fact of the matter is that when you start to talk and interact with these kids and adults, you find that many of them are open books. They wear their emotions on their sleeves.
They love unconditionally.
You can't stand them because you know that you'll never have half the guts, integrity or emotions that they have and put on display.
The only real "retard," is you.
"So your point of view is based on your experience with one blind friend who was not developmentally challenged in any way?"
---What? You think it's easy being blind? And he's one of the lucky ones, he can walk without a cane but he'll never be able to drive a car. He'll always be dependent on others to drive him around. Yet I don't see him competing in the Legally Blind Olympics, do I?
"There is a difference in that in the Special Olympics, kids and adults who were never able to compete in anything athletic because of such buttholes like you"
---That has nothing to do with people like me. Sports are meant to be harsh, nobody wants to play with the slow player.
"The Special Olympics isn't about the competition - it is about the effort."
---Yeah? Well life doesn't give a crap about effort. People don't get raises based on how hard they work, if you put in 12 hours but your work sucks, you're still getting fired.
"The fact of the matter is that when you start to talk and interact with these kids and adults, you find that many of them are open books. They wear their emotions on their sleeves."
---Big mistake, that can only lead to ridicule and name-calling.
"They love unconditionally."
---Oh come on, there is only one Jesus. Don't turn these kids into saints, they have their virtues and faults just like everyone else. Love unconditionally? Give me a break, nobody does that.
---What? You think it's easy being blind?
Instead of actually dealing with the issue, you go off on another tangent.
Yet I don't see him competing in the Legally Blind Olympics, do I?
Since you have only been to one event, I have no idea what you have or have not seen your friend do. I doubt that he would find your wanting to limit the opportunities of other handicapped and challenged people as favorably as you do.
---That has nothing to do with people like me.
Then shut up about your knowledge of what the Special Olympics and what they mean.
Sports are meant to be harsh, nobody wants to play with the slow player.
Wow. What a truly ignorant statement that is. You have no idea what people want. All you have is your hatred.
---Yeah? Well life doesn't give a crap about effort.
Actually, in real life, effort does matter.
People don't get raises based on how hard they work, if you put in 12 hours but your work sucks, you're still getting fired.
And your point has to deal with the Special Olympics how? Tell me Booby, do you think that the Olympians that go to Vancover this year after putting in years of training and effort are loser in life because the majority won't stand on a podium?
---Big mistake, that can only lead to ridicule and name-calling.
Only from people that are filled with hatred and jealousy such as yourself.
Love unconditionally? Give me a break, nobody does that.
Thank you for proving that you have never been around these kids.
Once again, all you have shown is that you are full of anger and hatred.
"Since you have only been to one event, I have no idea what you have or have not seen your friend do. I doubt that he would find your wanting to limit the opportunities of other handicapped and challenged people as favorably as you do."
----Look, a friend of mine is physically fit and 26 yet when he tried to join the Air Force the doctor told him he had a bad back and was disqualified. See? That's life, your opportunities are already limited no matter how much you want to try. I'm not saying a mentally retarded person can't accomplish anything, maybe they can be a great painter or bodybuilder, but I doubt someone who's physically disabled is ever going to win gold at the real Olympics.
"Wow. What a truly ignorant statement that is. You have no idea what people want. All you have is your hatred."
---No, I was a kid once, I took mandatory physical education and always got picked last at all sports because I sucked. Many years later I started seeing a personal trainer and got into great shape. However, anyone who tells me that sports aren't about winning is talking crap. Sports are always about winning, ask Vince Lombardi who said "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." Don't believe me? Listen to sports radio and hear what players who fail to play at their best are called. It's a cruel world my friend, you're just in denial.
"Actually, in real life, effort does matter."
---Ever heard of the Green Berets? 50% of the candidates admitted to the 2-week selection program will voluntarily withdrawn or be medically discharged, the remainder that survives might get "boarded" and invited to try again in the future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Forces_%28United_States_Army%29#Entry_into_Special_Forces
Get it? It takes HUGE effort just to survive those two weeks, yet in the end you might get NOTHING in return.
"And your point has to deal with the Special Olympics how? Tell me Booby, do you think that the Olympians that go to Vancover this year after putting in years of training and effort are loser in life because the majority won't stand on a podium?"
---No, they're all winners just getting accepted into the Olympics. Either way, I respect REAL competition between REAL athletes. When I was 13 I won a free throw basketball tournament against a bunch of jocks. Why? I managed to score the most baskets. See? My victory was real, I didn't compete with retards but talented jocks that probably didn't think I had a chance at beating them. And unlike the retards, I did not get a medal for participating, no, my medal was real and that's why it has value.
"Only from people that are filled with hatred and jealousy such as yourself."
---You're such a holier than thou type of person.
"Thank you for proving that you have never been around these kids."
---I have been around them, my high school had a kid like that and everyone treated him like he was special except for me. I was nice, but not too nice, and that's why he liked me better than all the idiots that would smile at him and make fun of the other kids.
You just don't get it, people don't want to be treated like they're special, they don't want to get medals when they haven't earned them and they certainly don't need announcers treating them like they're a bunch of retards that need constant encouragement.
You know what's real love? Watch The Biggest Loser and see how Jillian and the guy trainer SCREAM at some of those contestants.
"Once again, all you have shown is that you are full of anger and hatred."
---Yes St. Anonymous, and you are perfect in every way. Worry about your own sins buddy, because your road to heaven has nothing to do with me.
Bobby spewed forth, "Worry about your own sins buddy, because your road to heaven has nothing to do with me."
Jesus told me that you should get used to hot temperatures and the smell of sulfur.
"Jesus told me that you should get used to hot temperatures and the smell of sulfur."
---You shouldn't be taking the name of the Lord in vain. Besides, who are you to say who's worthy of heaven and hell?
"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,"
Romans 3:23 (New International Version)
As for judging others...
Luke 6:37-42 [37] "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. [38] Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." [39] He also told them this parable: "Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? [40] A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher. [41] "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? [42] How can you say to your brother, `Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
Quoting fairy tales, Bobby? I thought only "Use the Name, Luke" did that.
----Look, a friend of mine is physically fit .....
And this has what to do with the Special Olympics?
Nothing.
---No, I was a kid once, I took mandatory physical education and always got picked last at all sports because I sucked.
It must really burn to see people that are developmentally challenged outperform you, huh? Your hatred of them is palpable.
Get it? It takes HUGE effort just to survive those two weeks, yet in the end you might get NOTHING in return.
And yet, it still goes on your record that you attempted to make the Green Berets. It is considered a plus that you attempted it.
Oh, by the way, we give medals to people that try and save others from burning buildings. We give the MOH to people who tried to do something extraordinary in combat.
---No, they're all winners just getting accepted into the Olympics.
Gee, a contradiction of your earlier point. I am shocked. Shocked I tell you that you have flip flopped.
---I have been around them, my high school had a kid like that and everyone treated him like he was special except for me.
Well gee, at first you only knew one person and now you say that you have known two. I will give your story so much more weight now that you have lied about it.
Now of course, this has NOTHING to do with the Special Olympics, but as usual you can't stay on topic.
Even if your story is true, the point is that you are still trying to speak for all the people that are challenged. I too have met and worked with people that are disabled. Some don't want to take part in any type of competition. Others desperately want to. Loke the liberal you are, you want to cram your beliefs down the throats of others and limit them in what they can and cannot do. You want to restrict their freedoms and freedom to choose their own activities and pursuits.
I believe that they should decide.
Watch The Biggest Loser and see how Jillian and the guy trainer SCREAM at some of those contestants.
They have a show named after you?
Who knew?
---Yes St. Anonymous, and you are perfect in every way. Worry about your own sins buddy, because your road to heaven has nothing to do with me.
More hatred spewing forth you.
How sad.
"It must really burn to see people that are developmentally challenged outperform you, huh? Your hatred of them is palpable."
---LOFMAO! I'd like to see them walk 4 miles at 4mph or survive 30 minutes on an elliptical machine. Outperform me? Never.
"And yet, it still goes on your record that you attempted to make the Green Berets. It is considered a plus that you attempted it."
---I doubt you can put it on your resume or get a medal just for attempting. Trying and doing are two different things.
"Oh, by the way, we give medals to people that try and save others from burning buildings. We give the MOH to people who tried to do something extraordinary in combat."
---No, the firemen don't get medals for trying to save people, they get them for saving people.
"Gee, a contradiction of your earlier point. I am shocked. Shocked I tell you that you have flip flopped."
---The difference is that there is only one real Olympics while others are not. The jews for example have their Macabbi Games where jews from all over the world compete. Gays have the "Gay Games" where every few years you'll see people running, swimming, and doing other olympic-type competitions. However, those games are for a selected group of people while the REAL Olympics are for the best of the best of every nation.
"Well gee, at first you only knew one person and now you say that you have known two. I will give your story so much more weight now that you have lied about it."
---No, I simply remember something I had forgotten long ago. In fact, it was thanks to facebook that I even remembered him.
"Some don't want to take part in any type of competition. Others desperately want to."
---Look, it's just like advertising awards. Would it make sense for bad copywriters to create an award where everyone is bad so they have a chance at winning? We can't all be winners! It's unrealistic to think we can, in fact, retarded kids are better off concentrating on the thing they do well rather than wasting time with sports and others stuff they will never master.
"Loke the liberal you are, you want to cram your beliefs down the throats of others and limit them in what they can and cannot do."
---Hey, being judgmental and being a fascist are two different things. The south is full of "dry counties" where fundamentalists have imposed their views about alcohol on the entire community, that is fascism. I'm a libertarian, I support freedom which includes the freedom to disagree.
"You want to restrict their freedoms and freedom to choose their own activities and pursuits."
---It's no different than people who preach against smoking. Preaching and taking action are not the same.
"More hatred spewing forth you.
How sad."
---The hatred is coming from you, you always judge people rather than their arguments. I on the other hand can debate almost anyone without losing my cool.
"Quoting fairy tales, Bobby? I thought only "Use the Name, Luke" did that."
---I don't think you're an atheist, I think you're afraid that God actually exists which is why you have such venom for believers. Your theophobia is very telling.
---LOFMAO! I'd like to see them walk 4 miles at 4mph or survive 30 minutes on an elliptical machine. Outperform me? Never.
Gee, are those Olympic events? I must have missed them on the schedule.
---I doubt you can put it on your resume or get a medal just for attempting. Trying and doing are two different things.
I don't care what you "doubt." It goes on your record.
---No, the firemen don't get medals for trying to save people, they get them for saving people.
Another ignorant statement from you.
---The difference is that there is only one real Olympics while others are not.
Does the world know that you are the self proclaimed judge of what is "real" and what is not? I am sure that the Special Olympics do not proclaim to be the same as the international Olympics, but don't let the facts kick you in the face. Oh, by the way, you do realize that the Para-Olympics are organized and sponsored by the IOC, right?
---No, I simply remember something I had forgotten long ago.
Translation: "Caught in another lie, I had to make something up."
---Look, it's just like advertising awards.
You're joking, right? Even after all of this discussion, you still don't see the difference?
in fact, retarded kids are better off concentrating on the thing they do well rather than wasting time with sports and others stuff they will never master.
So people shouldn't participate in things unless they can "master" them? Is that really what you want to be saying? If that is the case, then once again you have risen to a new low of stupidity. People run marathons all the time, but will never compete in the Olympics or even win a marathon. There are a lot of good artists that make great works but will never win a prize or a medal.
You are so self-absorbed that you cannot imagine people doing something simply for the love of the activity. Because you are such a friggin' loser, you see everything as a competition when in fact, everything is not.
I'm a libertarian, I support freedom which includes the freedom to disagree.
You keep saying that but your posts indicate otherwise.
---It's no different than people who preach against smoking. Preaching and taking action are not the same.
So you want to equate challenged people to smokers? Is that really what you want to be doing? There is some evidence that smoking harms people - even some evidence that second hand smoke harms people. You want to equate something that may harm you to an activity like the Special Olympics that doesn't affect you in the least, and yet you feel called to demonize and hate not only the organizers, but the participants?
That's pathetic.
---The hatred is coming from you, you always judge people rather than their arguments. I on the other hand can debate almost anyone without losing my cool.
You have no ability to debate. You simply cannot stay on a topic. When your ignorance on a subject is shown, you lack the maturity to say "I was wrong," and instead repeatedly try to make the same factually inaccurate point.
Even in this discussion you can't stay on point. No one has to attack you or hate you because your ignorance and childishness is seen by all.
"Gee, are those Olympic events? I must have missed them on the schedule."
---Dude, if they were as good as normal athletes they wouldn't need special Olympics.
"Another ignorant statement from you."
---See? That's an attack. Rather than respond a statement with another statement, all you can do is call me ignorant. Man, you are so self-rightious, just like the people who ridicule Palin.
"Oh, by the way, you do realize that the Para-Olympics are organized and sponsored by the IOC, right?"
---That's political correctness at work. The Olympic committee doesn't want to get criticized by the PC forces, so they simply give in.
"You're joking, right? Even after all of this discussion, you still don't see the difference?"
---All I see is special accommodation for people who are unable to compete with normal people.
"So people shouldn't participate in things unless they can "master" them? Is that really what you want to be saying? If that is the case, then once again you have risen to a new low of stupidity."
---"Jack of all trades, master of none" is a timeless expression that wisely advices to concentrate on one thing and learn to do it really well rather than experiment with everything and be good at nothing.
"People run marathons all the time, but will never compete in the Olympics or even win a marathon."
---Fine, so some people don't mind losing. Whatever.
"There are a lot of good artists that make great works but will never win a prize or a medal."
---If they're good enough to make a living without winning prizes or medals, fine, but if they need a second job to support themselves, maybe they're not that good.
"You are so self-absorbed that you cannot imagine people doing something simply for the love of the activity."
---Just because you're an optimist that lacks cynicism doesn't mean your views are correct. I'm simply good at seeing the darker side of things.
"Because you are such a friggin' loser, you see everything as a competition when in fact, everything is not.'
---More self-righteousness from you, you call me a loser, I assume you see yourself as a winner. I assume you simply lack empathy for anyone who doesn't see things the way you do.
"You keep saying that but your posts indicate otherwise."
---I'm also politically incorrect.
"So you want to equate challenged people to smokers?"
---I did not do that, my statement was: "It's no different than people who preach against smoking. Preaching and taking action are not the same." I merely stated that preaching against something and taking action to make it illegal are two very different things. I don't like retarded people competing in the special Olympics, but I will never take a stand to stop the special Olympics from taking place. Tolerance doesn't equal approval, I hate tattoos but I don't go around beating people who wear them.
"yet you feel called to demonize and hate not only the organizers, but the participants?
That's pathetic."
---Criticizing people is not the same as demonizing them.
"Even in this discussion you can't stay on point. No one has to attack you or hate you because your ignorance and childishness is seen by all."
---Rather than cite plenty of examples of your attacks, I'll use the following from your previous post: "Because you are such a friggin' loser..."
So don't go playing Mr. Civility here.
Either way, if you want to see retarded people competing, fine, whatever. I think they're wasting their time, yet I guess having an opinion that is different from yours is politically incorrect.
---Dude, if they were as good as normal athletes they wouldn't need special Olympics.
Dude, learn to read. The comment was made in regard to your so called athletic prowess on an elliptical walker.
So I guess you must be saying "Dude, if I were as good as a normal athlete, I wouldn't be talking about how great I am on an elliptical machine."
---See? That's an attack. Rather than respond a statement with another statement, all you can do is call me ignorant.
There is nothing to respond to. You have a nasty habit of making statements without any type of factual support and then you get upset when people call you on them. Your statement is one of ignorance. Period. It responds to your argument by pointing out that you have no factual basis for your statement. You just can't stand it when someone sees through your BS and calls you on it.
---That's political correctness at work. The Olympic committee doesn't want to get criticized by the PC forces, so they simply give in.
Back that statement up with some facts. Cite a source other than you opinion that proves your point to be correct. You want debate? Fine. Debate. Otherwise, every illogical statement, every lie and every statement highlighting your ignorance will be give the lack of respect it and you deserve.
---Fine, so some people don't mind losing. Whatever.
The "whatever" shows once again that your position that people only do something if they can win a medal to be totally false. Tell me Booby, what medals have you won on an "elliptical machine?" Where is that "sport" in the Olympics?
Your own hobby and "athletic endeavor" shows how false your position is, but you won't ever admit it.
---If they're good enough to make a living without winning prizes or medals, fine, but if they need a second job to support themselves, maybe they're not that good.
Maybe you don't know what you are talking about. There are a lot of people that do things for an avocation and love what they do. They don't do it for a medal.
---Just because you're an optimist that lacks cynicism doesn't mean your views are correct. I'm simply good at seeing the darker side of things.
You see the darker side of things because you close your eyes.
---More self-righteousness from you, you call me a loser, I assume you see yourself as a winner. I assume you simply lack empathy for anyone who doesn't see things the way you do.
No Booby, you are a loser by your own definition. You have said that real athletes and real winners only win medals. Got a medal for being on an elliptical machine?
I don't define you as a loser - you define yourself as a loser.
---I did not do that, my statement was: "It's no different than people who preach against smoking. Preaching and taking action are not the same."
Oh. I see. So you don't believe that the subject matter of smoking and the Special Olympics are the same, yet you made the statement that preaching against smoking and preaching against the Special Olympics are the same thing. Once again, your own words betray you.
---Criticizing people is not the same as demonizing them.
Calling them names, casting aspersions on their reasons for competing, trying to present yourself as better than they are is not a criticism, it is demonizing them.
---Rather than cite plenty of examples of your attacks, I'll use the following from your previous post: "Because you are such a friggin' loser..."
I am just using your definition of a loser, Booby. You attack and hate that which you do not know. That is a pattern with you. You cannot debate anything on any intellectually moral level. You always lie, go off on tangents and make things up.
You hate getting caught. That is the bottom line. You hate getting caught.
Either way, if you want to see retarded people competing, fine, whatever. I think they're wasting their time, yet I guess having an opinion that is different from yours is politically incorrect.
Even this statement is a flip flop from an earlier position of yours.
The only consistency in talking with you is expecting your inconsistency. (Well, that and your lies, your fabricating things, your ignorance, your .....)
Calling them names, casting aspersions on their reasons for competing, trying to present yourself as better than they are is not a criticism, it is demonizing them.
Hold on there - demonizing statements are along the lines of "These guys are EVIL!" I haven't seen any statements from Bobby calling the Special Olympics or its competitors evil, only his opinion that it's a waste of time.
"There is nothing to respond to. You have a nasty habit of making statements without any type of factual support and then you get upset when people call you on them. Your statement is one of ignorance. Period."
---If someone says "abortion is murder" I don't call them ignorant just because I happen to support abortion. That's the difference between us, I attack arguments, you attack people. I am Fox News, you are MSNBC. Capish?
"The "whatever" shows once again that your position that people only do something if they can win a medal to be totally false. Tell me Booby, what medals have you won on an "elliptical machine?" Where is that "sport" in the Olympics?"
---I also admitted that some people compete just because they like competing. As for me, I'm not competing against anyone but myself and my own goals.
"Your own hobby and "athletic endeavor" shows how false your position is, but you won't ever admit it."
---Actually, it's a miracle I learned to love working out as an adult, because what I learned as a kid during mandatory physical education was that sports are only for the strong and talented and if you're not good enough you're better off not playing.
"No Booby, you are a loser by your own definition. You have said that real athletes and real winners only win medals. Got a medal for being on an elliptical machine?"
---You should have said that before. Either way, not competing doesn't make you a loser. I just think that the people that organize the Special Olympics are misguided in their efforts to give medals to kids that aren't good enough to earn them outside their carefully controlled environment. Look, it's just like American Idol where you see thousands of people with horrible singing voices auditioning. Instead of telling kids "you can be anything you want to be" we should tell them to find their strenghts and focus on them.
"Oh. I see. So you don't believe that the subject matter of smoking and the Special Olympics are the same, yet you made the statement that preaching against smoking and preaching against the Special Olympics are the same thing. Once again, your own words betray you."
--I used "smoking" as an example, I could have said "preaching against rock music, violent video games, porn, burning the flag, same-sex marriage, etc, etc, etc." Part of being free is enjoying your ability to criticize things without infringing on the freedoms of others.
"Calling them names, casting aspersions on their reasons for competing, trying to present yourself as better than they are is not a criticism, it is demonizing them."
---Robert already responded this statement, and I'm grateful for his defense. Besides, I did not demonize retarded kids, I only criticized the existence of the Special Olympics.
You should watch The O'Reilly Factor and learn how to destroy an argument without entering the personal arena.
It's funny, you often accuse me of being a liberal yet you treat me the exact same way liberals treat me whenever I debate anything with them. Tell a liberal you support guns and he'll call you a redneck, say you're ignorant, accuse you of being hateful or have sick fantasies about commiting murder, they'll even question the size of your penis. I don't know, maybe its your personality trait.
---If someone says "abortion is murder" I don't call them ignorant just because I happen to support abortion. That's the difference between us, I attack arguments, you attack people. I am Fox News, you are MSNBC. Capish?
Nice change of the subject. Once again you fail to address the issue.
---I also admitted that some people compete just because they like competing.
No you didn't. In fact you have said the exact opposite.
---Actually, it's a miracle I learned to love working out as an adult, because what I learned as a kid during mandatory physical education was that sports are only for the strong and talented and if you're not good enough you're better off not playing.
Which is exactly the philosophy of the Special Olympics. They too believe that the effort in playing is better than sitting on the sidelines.
What a flip flop from you.
You should watch The O'Reilly Factor and learn how to destroy an argument without entering the personal arena.
I do. I see O'Reilly get beat up all the time. Perhaps you saw the interview with the guy from Politico who basically beat O'Reilly around and then Bret Hume followed in the next segment making the same points?
O'Reilly is a rabble rouser who seldom deals with facts. That is what you do as well. It is not difficult debating with people like that (and you) because your reality is so skewed and so contrary to facts that you usually get crushed in the first sentence.
It's funny, you often accuse me of being a liberal yet you treat me the exact same way liberals treat me whenever I debate anything with them.
Really? That is interesting considering how liberals usually avoid facts like you do. I guess it just goes to show that there are liberals like yourself and then there are those that are even more liberal.
I don't know, maybe its your personality trait.
It is a personality trait to love the truth.
In this discussion alone you have flip flopped, put forth all sorts of unsupported statements and still you think that you are right.
Oh well.
Live in ignorance.
"Nice change of the subject. Once again you fail to address the issue."
---The issue is you, you turn discussions about politics into personal discussions.
I say: "I hate the chili dogs."
You say: "You're a sick hateful person."
That's your debate style.
"Which is exactly the philosophy of the Special Olympics. They too believe that the effort in playing is better than sitting on the sidelines."
---Fine, maybe they're not all bad. I don't like the announcers though, it's really retarded to yell "go Jerry, go Tommy, go Billy, go go go go go." How are retarded people supposed to learn to be normal if you keep treating them like retards?
"I do. I see O'Reilly get beat up all the time. Perhaps you saw the interview with the guy from Politico who basically beat O'Reilly around and then Bret Hume followed in the next segment making the same points?"
---I saw the segment, the Politico guy was in denial and O'Reilly got letters in his defense. Still, O'Reilly did not call him ignorant or stupid. You really have to be a jerk to make O'Reilly lose his cool.
"O'Reilly is a rabble rouser who seldom deals with facts. That is what you do as well. It is not difficult debating with people like that (and you) because your reality is so skewed and so contrary to facts that you usually get crushed in the first sentence."
---You think O'Reilly would be #1 if he didn't deal with facts? He's #1 because he's fair and balanced and doesn't impose his ideology on the people. Really, you're the only conservative I know that doesn't like the Bill O.
"Really? That is interesting considering how liberals usually avoid facts like you do. I guess it just goes to show that there are liberals like yourself and then there are those that are even more liberal."
---Touche, Mr. Anonymous, you always have an answer. My "liberalism" is really "libertarianism." Liberals believe in doing what's best for society (and some conservatives also believe that as well), libertarians believe in letting the individual choose what's best for him provided the freedoms of others are not violated. Thus, a libertarian will support a nude beach but not nudity at a shopping mall.
---The issue is you, you turn discussions about politics into personal discussions.
Thanks for the laugh.
I say: "I hate the chili dogs."
You say: "You're a sick hateful person."
That's your debate style.
If that were true, you might be correct. As it is, you will say "I hate chili dogs because they kill dogs to make them."
I respond with a fact that they don't kill dogs to make them and then you will say something like "dogs are brutalized by fascists."
Your opinions are fine. It is when you lie about a factual basis for your opinions that you get into trouble.
---Fine, maybe they're not all bad. I don't like the announcers though, it's really retarded to yell "go Jerry, go Tommy, go Billy, go go go go go." How are retarded people supposed to learn to be normal if you keep treating them like retards?
Okay. A decent concession from you. Now think about this..... you said that you went to one event and this was the style of one announcer. I have been to a lot of these events and while I will rarely hear what you heard, I won't condemn ALL announcers for doing it. That is where your opinion crosses over into an unsubstantiated claim.
---I saw the segment, the Politico guy was in denial and O'Reilly got letters in his defense. Still, O'Reilly did not call him ignorant or stupid. You really have to be a jerk to make O'Reilly lose his cool.
Actually, he did call him ignorant. I don't care if O'Reilly got letters in his defense. That doesn't add one bit of veracity to his argument. (An example would be that more people voted for OBama and that doesn't mean he is right.)
What happened in that interview is typical of O'Reilly and of you. O'Reilly put out a factual assertion and the guy called him on it. O'Reilly just kept repeating the assertion as if that made it true. You do the same thing. When the Politico guy offered his proof, O'Reilly dismissed him as being a "tool." Only when Hume came on and made the same points did O'Reilly relent somewhat.
---You think O'Reilly would be #1 if he didn't deal with facts?
I am not sure what facts have to do with popularity. Going back to Obama, he was popular and he lied about "facts" all the time.
He's #1 because he's fair and balanced and doesn't impose his ideology on the people.
Of course he does. That is his schtick. "I am fair and balanced," is his slogan. It is a slogan without substance. How many times has he said "we need to impeach" a certain judge. Or deny that Fox has any bias at all? I have never seen O'Reilly not get wiped off of the floor in a debate where he doesn't control the mic. When he can't shout down the opposing view, cut their mics, or end a segment, he loses.
Really, you're the only conservative I know that doesn't like the Bill O.
I would say that only goes to show that you don't know many conservatives.
"Your opinions are fine. It is when you lie about a factual basis for your opinions that you get into trouble."
---Yeah well, I think my opinions are fine as long as you agree with them, then you don't give me any crap.
"Okay. A decent concession from you. Now think about this..... you said that you went to one event and this was the style of one announcer. I have been to a lot of these events and while I will rarely hear what you heard, I won't condemn ALL announcers for doing it. That is where your opinion crosses over into an unsubstantiated claim."
---Fine, point taken.
"What happened in that interview is typical of O'Reilly and of you. O'Reilly put out a factual assertion and the guy called him on it. O'Reilly just kept repeating the assertion as if that made it true. You do the same thing. When the Politico guy offered his proof, O'Reilly dismissed him as being a "tool." Only when Hume came on and made the same points did O'Reilly relent somewhat."
---The Politico guy had no proof. O'reilly's team only found two positive stories about the Tea Parties in the mainstream media, the Politico guy wasn't able to dispute that and instead tried to spin the story his way. That's how I saw it, and I was surprised since Politico is usually a great website.
"I am not sure what facts have to do with popularity. Going back to Obama, he was popular and he lied about "facts" all the time."
---True, but I suppose the people who watch Fox News are there for the fair and balanced style of their news and commentary divisions.
"Of course he does. That is his schtick. "I am fair and balanced," is his slogan. It is a slogan without substance. How many times has he said "we need to impeach" a certain judge. Or deny that Fox has any bias at all?"
---How many times has he invited said judge on the air? Just because O'reilly takes a position doesn't mean he's unfair, he will debate other people who disagree with him and he will correct himself if he's ever wrong.
"I have never seen O'Reilly not get wiped off of the floor in a debate where he doesn't control the mic. When he can't shout down the opposing view, cut their mics, or end a segment, he loses."
---That's what liberal writers claim, but my experience is that when you're debating with fanatics it doesn't matter what facts you bring to the table because their minds are made up.
"I would say that only goes to show that you don't know many conservatives."
---I know plenty of conservatives and I'm a daily listener to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannitti. I'm simply not an ideologue. If Barrack ever has a good idea, I will support him. I'm not going to be like the Bush haters that never gave Bush credit for anything.
---Yeah well, I think my opinions are fine as long as you agree with them, then you don't give me any crap.
No, I disagree with them when they are based on factually wrong information.
---The Politico guy had no proof.
Oh yes he did. He invited O'Reilly to come to Politico and see proof of the points he was making. He made the proof available for all to see.
O'reilly's team only found two positive stories about the Tea Parties in the mainstream media,
And when asked to see the research, O'Reilly only repeated the claim that his staff had found only two "positive articles." There is a problem there because, as most people know, the criteria of what is "positive" is highly subjective. Therefore the "research" his staff did is subjective as well. Secondly, as O'Reilly made no mention of what qualified as "main stream media," there is no way to judge the accuracy of his statement as well.
The Politico guy was willing to show his research. O'Reilly was not. Like you, he only could keep saying "this is what we found!" His repeating the same thing doesn't make it true or add anything.
the Politico guy wasn't able to dispute that and instead tried to spin the story his way.
Not only did he dispute it, he offered PROOF of his position - something that O'Reilly never did. It is also telling that Bret Hume, the Fox contributor, backed the Politico guy in the next segment.
---True, but I suppose the people who watch Fox News are there for the fair and balanced style of their news and commentary divisions.
I think it is more likely that due to the preponderance of other liberal leaning media, Fox stands out as a right wing leading media. It is the only one out there so people go to it.
---How many times has he invited said judge on the air?
I have no idea. It doesn't matter how many times he invites a judge on because the ethics of judges prevents often prevents them from talking about cases they have ruled upon until a certain period of time has lapsed. There are some exceptions to this, but as most of the cases O'Reilly screams about are still under appeal or review, the judge cannot talk about that case. It is a meaningless gesture on his part and he knows it.
Just because O'reilly takes a position doesn't mean he's unfair, he will debate other people who disagree with him and he will correct himself if he's ever wrong.
He doesn't correct himself everytime he is wrong. I am sure you have seen the legal discussions where he is wrong and yet won't admit it. If he admitted he was wrong each time he was wrong, the whole show would be him apologizing.
---That's what liberal writers claim, but my experience is that when you're debating with fanatics it doesn't matter what facts you bring to the table because their minds are made up.
Right. I agree. O'Reilly is a fanatic and facts seldom matter to him. He has an agenda that he puts before the facts. Those he disagrees with he shouts down, goes to another segment or cuts the mic. When he is actually at a place where he doesn't control the timing or the mic, he gets killed.
---I know plenty of conservatives and I'm a daily listener to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannitti.
You listen to him so much that you don't know how to spell Sean Hannity's name?
Media Matters also listens to Rush, Hannity, Beck, and O'Reilly. I guess that makes them conservatives as well?
O'Reilly is one who riles people up on themes. Like you, he shies away from facts. He cannot debate anyone who disagrees with him because he simply shuts them up and won't let them speak.
Oh, and if you think that he never attacks people, I direct you to his segment called "Pinheads and Patriots" where he daily labels a person a pinhead for their positions and actions.
"Secondly, as O'Reilly made no mention of what qualified as "main stream media," there is no way to judge the accuracy of his statement as well."
---He wasn't specific in that segment, but generally he has referred to the mainstream media as pretty much every TV and newspaper except for Fox News, The Washington Times and The New York Post.
"I think it is more likely that due to the preponderance of other liberal leaning media, Fox stands out as a right wing leading media. It is the only one out there so people go to it."
---Alright, I will agree with that.
"I have no idea. It doesn't matter how many times he invites a judge on because the ethics of judges prevents often prevents them from talking about cases they have ruled upon until a certain period of time has lapsed."
---What about that Vermont judge who gave a pedophile probation? Didn't he talk to the liberal media after being criticized by Fox?
"There are some exceptions to this, but as most of the cases O'Reilly screams about are still under appeal or review, the judge cannot talk about that case. It is a meaningless gesture on his part and he knows it."
---He screams because you have judges that refuse to apply Jessica's Laws, that give pedophiles probation and do other things that put the kids at risk. The O Factor also looks to see if the judge has a pattern of being soft on pedophiles. I'm not saying that the judge should act as a "second chair" or "second prosecutor" but it's crazy to keep giving breaks to serial molesters.
"He doesn't correct himself everytime he is wrong. I am sure you have seen the legal discussions where he is wrong and yet won't admit it. If he admitted he was wrong each time he was wrong, the whole show would be him apologizing."
---Legal discussions are matters of opinion. Look at SCOTUS, give them any issue and you will have Scalia ruling one way and other judges ruling differently. Tell me, is Judge Napolitano and Margaret Hoover always right?
"Right. I agree. O'Reilly is a fanatic and facts seldom matter to him. He has an agenda that he puts before the facts."
---What is his agenda? He's an independent, his views are all over the place.
"Those he disagrees with he shouts down, goes to another segment or cuts the mic."
---He doesn't like people who spin. For example, I've never seen him shout down the radicals of Code Pink because they know that Bill O tolerates opinions but abhors spin, lies, deception, character assasinations and the like.
"You listen to him so much that you don't know how to spell Sean Hannity's name?"
---Spelling has always been a weakness of mine, in fact, it's the thing that often gets me in trouble at work. I do listen to him a lot however, I know his story of how he had to drop out of college several times to work in construction to raise the money to pay for his education.
"Media Matters also listens to Rush, Hannity, Beck, and O'Reilly. I guess that makes them conservatives as well?"
---Oh come on, those people are like foxwatch.com, they're the enemy, they listen to attack my heroes.
"Oh, and if you think that he never attacks people, I direct you to his segment called "Pinheads and Patriots" where he daily labels a person a pinhead for their positions and actions."
---That segment is in jest, sometimes he even had the question mark in front of the word pinhead. So what? If Oliver Stone talks against America what's wrong with O'reilly calling him a pinhead?
---He wasn't specific in that segment, but generally he has referred to the mainstream media as pretty much every TV and newspaper except for Fox News, The Washington Times and The New York Post.
So once again, the point is that he made a statement without proof. What you generally understand him to mean is not the same thing as proving what his research staff looked at. That is the point here. O'Reilly backed away from any sort of proof other than to keep saying the same thing. The Politico guy offered the proof of his contention.
---What about that Vermont judge who gave a pedophile probation? Didn't he talk to the liberal media after being criticized by Fox?
As I remember, he issued a statement, but never discussed the specifics of the case. As I said, generally speaking, it is against the code of ethics for judges to speak about cases that are still ongoing.
---He screams because you have judges that refuse to apply Jessica's Laws, ......
You admit he screams but don't see that he screams about cases that are still under appeal or review. The offer to "come onto the program" is meaningless because of that. It is just a ploy to make him sound reasonable when in fact, he is not.
---Legal discussions are matters of opinion. Look at SCOTUS, give them any issue and you will have Scalia ruling one way and other judges ruling differently. Tell me, is Judge Napolitano and Margaret Hoover always right?
You are confusing the interpretation of a law and the law itself. Too often O'Reilly says something that is contrary to the letter and spirit of the law and then screams that he is right when in fact he is dead, solid wrong.
---What is his agenda? He's an independent, his views are all over the place.
His agenda is to promote Fox News and sell his ridiculous pile of crap. He is a self promoter and not a serious journalist.
---He doesn't like people who spin. For example, I've never seen him shout down the radicals of Code Pink because they know that Bill O tolerates opinions but abhors spin, lies, deception, character assasinations and the like.
Wow. You must watch a different show than I do. I have seen him assassinate characters of people he disagrees with all the time. He cuts off people that he disagrees with. Even tonight, he tried to get Blagojevich to violate a court order, and then when he wouldn't answer a question the way O;Reily wanted him to, he made fun of him throughout the next segment.
He doesn't like people who "spin" because it means he is looking in the mirror.
--Oh come on, those people are like foxwatch.com, they're the enemy, they listen to attack my heroes.
You are the one that out forth that only conservatives watch Fox and O'Reilly. I simply showed the fallacy in that argument.
---That segment is in jest, sometimes he even had the question mark in front of the word pinhead. So what? If Oliver Stone talks against America what's wrong with O'reilly calling him a pinhead?
Absolutely nothing is wrong with it. The problem is that you said that O'Reilly would never call any one a name. He does. He does it all the time. I think that you are so in love with the guy that you don't see it.
O'Reilly is in it for the ratings. He is in it not "for the little guy" as he claims, but only for himself. He has a schtick that works and that is fine.
I am not willing to buy into what Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter, and people say simply because they profess to be conservative or profess to be of any political leaning. Their views stand or fall on the accuracy of the supporting facts.
When people like O'Reilly get challenged on the facts of the issue and whine like a stuck pig, they are no different than any other liar of any political persuasion.
"So once again, the point is that he made a statement without proof. What you generally understand him to mean is not the same thing as proving what his research staff looked at."
---Well, I guess I'm watching more to hear his opinions and the opinions of others rather than cold hard facts.
"The offer to "come onto the program" is meaningless because of that. It is just a ploy to make him sound reasonable when in fact, he is not."
---That sounds like a conspiracy, as if he knew they couldn't come on the show so he would make the offer just to make himself look good.
"You are confusing the interpretation of a law and the law itself."
---Well, he's not a lawyer, he admits not being a lawyer, that's why he often debates lawyers to get their legal viewpoints. However, when Marc Lamont Hill (who is a lawyer) ignores that there is a law that allows the military to try terrorists and O'Reilly reminds him of such law and Lamont ignores it, guess who I trust?
"His agenda is to promote Fox News and sell his ridiculous pile of crap. He is a self promoter and not a serious journalist."
---He's a commentator, and he donates thousands of dollars to charity thanks to the "crap" he sells. Habitat for Humanity and the Wounded Warrior Project loves him for all that he does on their behalf. And when he visits the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, you'll see lots of soldiers waiting in line to shake his hand.
"Even tonight, he tried to get Blagojevich to violate a court order, and then when he wouldn't answer a question the way O'Reily wanted him to, he made fun of him throughout the next segment."
---Maybe O'reilly made a mistake, but if Blago can't answer general questions then maybe he shouldn't be giving interviews. He could have sent his lawyer instead.
"You are the one that out forth that only conservatives watch Fox and O'Reilly. I simply showed the fallacy in that argument."
---Well, you are a conservative, you watch the show on a regular basis I suppose. Why do that if you don't like the guy?
"Absolutely nothing is wrong with it. The problem is that you said that O'Reilly would never call any one a name. He does. He does it all the time. I think that you are so in love with the guy that you don't see it."
---You're right, it's hard for me to see his flaws except when it comes to his opinions on films like Saw and Hostel which he hates and instead of debating Ely Roth he will debate others who hate those films. That's the only time I've seen him be extremely unfair.
"O'Reilly is in it for the ratings. He is in it not "for the little guy" as he claims, but only for himself. He has a schtick that works and that is fine."
---That's a very cynical way of looking at things. The guy is a millionaire, he's old, he could retire in luxury yet he continues doing his show because he believes in it. If he was a phony, people would see right through him.
"If he was a phony, people would see right through him."
He is a phony and that is why I DO NOT watch him. I stopped watching O'Reilly when I realized that I was yelling back at the TV. The aggravation is not worth it. This blog is just about as bad. Been trying to ween myself off. Reading this blog is like watching a train wreck. It is quite incredible the crap that is put forth here.
---Well, I guess I'm watching more to hear his opinions and the opinions of others rather than cold hard facts.
That's fine. But when those opinions are not supported by the facts, that is when opinions becomes lies.
---That sounds like a conspiracy, as if he knew they couldn't come on the show so he would make the offer just to make himself look good.
You mean when you hear him say "we invited Joe Blow onto the program but he didn't have the guts to show up," that doesn't make you mad or upset at Joe Blow?
It is a ploy. Nothing more.
---He's a commentator, and he donates thousands of dollars to charity thanks to the "crap" he sells.
So? You are confusing the success of his agenda with him not having an agenda. He is a self promoter. People buy the stuff he sells. People also buy stuff from 9/11 Truthers, Jimmy Swaggert, etc.
---Maybe O'reilly made a mistake, but if Blago can't answer general questions then maybe he shouldn't be giving interviews. He could have sent his lawyer instead.
It wasn't a general question. It was a specific question that O'Reilly knew couldn't be answered but yet continued to press the issue. He then attacked Blago in the next segment for basically not complying with a court order.
---Well, you are a conservative, you watch the show on a regular basis I suppose. Why do that if you don't like the guy?
It is noise in the background. Once in awhile he has an interesting point or subject. The difference is that I am not a worshiper of the guy like you are. When he is wrong, he should say so because that is what he demands from others. In some ways, his show is like watching a car wreck.
---That's a very cynical way of looking at things. The guy is a millionaire, he's old, he could retire in luxury yet he continues doing his show because he believes in it. If he was a phony, people would see right through him.
You mean people like me could see right through him? O'Reilly relies on people who are not critical thinkers.
And by the way, O'Reilly is only 60 years of age. That isn't old.
O'Reilly is no different than a carnival barker. He draws you into the arena and then wants you to forget reality.
"You mean when you hear him say "we invited Joe Blow onto the program but he didn't have the guts to show up," that doesn't make you mad or upset at Joe Blow?"
---It does make me upset, in fact, I don't trust anyone who refuses to debate Bill O'Reilly or who criticizes him from the comfort of a computer but won't face him when invited to do so.
"So? You are confusing the success of his agenda with him not having an agenda. He is a self promoter. People buy the stuff he sells. People also buy stuff from 9/11 Truthers, Jimmy Swaggert, etc."
---Fine, I guess his agenda resonates with lots of people. However, I think he has integrity because he doesn't cater his opinions to liberals or conservatives. He gets hate mail from both the right and the left.
"He then attacked Blago in the next segment for basically not complying with a court order."
---Fine, maybe O'reilly is ignorant of what it means to have a court order that gags you.
"The difference is that I am not a worshiper of the guy like you are."
---Point taken, I do worship some people, I won't deny it. Besides, the guy is an inspiration, I read "A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity," his life is very inspiring.
---It does make me upset, in fact, I don't trust anyone who refuses to debate Bill O'Reilly or who criticizes him from the comfort of a computer but won't face him when invited to do so.
So you agree that his "invitations" are not genuine and are merely a ploy to make people angry.
Secondly, why would anyone come on O'Reilly when he has shown the propensity to shout them down, cut them off, cut their mic and end the segment when he disagrees with them? In neutral debates, O'Reilly gets killed. That is why he wants them on his show. He controls the tenor or tone of the debate. In other forums, he doesn't and it shows.
However, I think he has integrity because he doesn't cater his opinions to liberals or conservatives. He gets hate mail from both the right and the left.
Sorry, when he lies and makes stuff up like you do, both of you are lacking in integrity.
---Fine, maybe O'reilly is ignorant of what it means to have a court order that gags you.
Actually he isn't. I have a friend that works for a production company the hosted an O'Reilly "debate" with someone. In the contract rider, it specifically said that O'Reilly would not answer and the moderator must stop any reference to his settlement with the woman that leveled a sexual harassment charge against him
So you have O'Reilly demanding one thing of his "guests" and people he disagrees with, and yet he demands another standard when he is on the hot seat.
He is simply a hypocrite in that area. (Which means he is lacking integrity.)
Besides, the guy is an inspiration, I read "A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity," his life is very inspiring.
Sorry. People that lie and are hypocrites are not inspirational to most people.
"So you agree that his "invitations" are not genuine and are merely a ploy to make people angry."
---I don't know enough to agree or disagree with you. If a lawyer would like to comment on when can a judge speak about a case I'd like to know.
"Secondly, why would anyone come on O'Reilly when he has shown the propensity to shout them down, cut them off, cut their mic and end the segment when he disagrees with them?"
---The mayor of San Francisco wasn't shouted down, his mic wasn't cut. Why? Because Newsom finally learned that the trick with O'reilly is not to spin. If you know how to behave yourself on The Factor you're gonna do great, but if you start telling lies and he catches you, it becomes hell.
Still, the reasons people go on the shows are the following.
1. Huge ratings of conservatives, independents, and some democrats.
2. O'reilly is famous for asking tough questions which can help personalities look good.
3. They have fun, they get publicity and if they have a book they get to plug it.
"In neutral debates, O'Reilly gets killed."
---I saw him on Oprah and The View, he defended his views very well.
"In the contract rider, it specifically said that O'Reilly would not answer and the moderator must stop any reference to his settlement with the woman that leveled a sexual harassment charge against him"
---I assume most celebrities have riders and limits on what you can and can't ask them. Besides, the settlement probably has a clause that prevents both O'reilly and the woman from speaking about that incident.
"So you have O'Reilly demanding one thing of his "guests" and people he disagrees with, and yet he demands another standard when he is on the hot seat."
---A settlement is not a court order. Besides, I've read the biographies of criminal defense attorney Oscar Goodman and Bobby Simone, they all complain that the prosecutors routinely will go to the media and trash their clients on purpose. Why? Because bad publicity can affect how a jury sees the defendant.
---The mayor of San Francisco wasn't shouted down, his mic wasn't cut. Why? Because Newsom finally learned that the trick with O'reilly is not to spin. If you know how to behave yourself on The Factor you're gonna do great, but if you start telling lies and he catches you, it becomes hell.
Bull. The mayor was trying to make a point that O'Reilly disagreed with and he wouldn't let him speak.
The definition of "spin" to O"Reilly is "someone saying something I disagree with."
---I saw him on Oprah and The View, he defended his views very well.
That's funny. That really is. Do you think that Oprah or the View is any type of serious debate?
---I assume most celebrities have riders and limits on what you can and can't ask them. Besides, the settlement probably has a clause that prevents both O'reilly and the woman from speaking about that incident.
Right. Now remember that point.
---A settlement is not a court order.
Oh geez. A settlement is a contract approved by the parties and the courts. It carries the weight of the courts behind it. O"Reilly won't let people ask him questions on certain subjects but demands answers all the time from others. He is a hypocrite.
Besides, I've read the biographies of criminal defense attorney Oscar Goodman and Bobby Simone, they all complain that the prosecutors routinely will go to the media and trash their clients on purpose. Why? Because bad publicity can affect how a jury sees the defendant.
Which, of course, has NOTHING to do with a gag order placed by judge saying the parties cannot talk about a case outside of the court.
Nice try, pinhead.
Post a Comment