You don’t need to be a psychologist or a body expert to figure out that Bill O’Reilly’s justifications tonight for his bullying attack on Alan Colmes last week are a lot of hooey. In fact, there was so much hooey, I’m not sure I can catch it all in one post. But for starters, there was the hooey that O’Reilly likened Colmes’ “lie” about federal spending cuts to the danger posed by Al Qaeda (which included the hooey that Colmes had his facts wrong in the first place), plus the hooey that O’Reilly attacked Colmes out of a public-spirited desire to draw attention to this big danger, plus O’Reilly’s "admission" that he shouldn’t have called Colmes a liar – even though he immediately afterward described Colmes as lying. And my favorite hooey: O’Reilly said he’s not in his job for money or fame, but to look out for us.
The hooey started right in the Talking Points commentary that opens the show.
…It was interesting watching the anti-Fox media try to exploit the shootout I had with Alan Colmes last week. These hacks flailed around, trying to diminish me and this network.
I think you did the diminishing all on your own, Bill.
…The reason I got angry with Alan Colmes – who’ll be on the program tomorrow – is that he refused to acknowledge President Obama’s refusal to cut federal programs.
Unfortunately for Bill, that is false. Kirsten Powers pretty well set him straight on the subject and I noted that PolitiFact rated House Speaker John Boehner’s similar claim as Pants on Fire.
…So in order to get everybody’s attention, I got angry with Colmes and I believe my anger was absolutely justified.
…Now all Factor viewers should know one thing about me. I’m not in business to make money or to accumulate fame. I don’t care about that.
Right. That’s why O’Reilly threatened to quit working if his taxes went up. Twice.
I’m here to look out for you and to look out for the most defenseless Americans. I’m here to protect as many children and babies as I can. And to resolve brutal situations like the Marine unjustly incarcerated in Mexico.
O'Reilly is being modest here. He left out his other accomplishments such as saving Christmas in Great Barrington, MA.
Also, I’m here to tell you when you’re in danger – from Al Qaeda, from out-of-control federal spending – whatever it may be. This is my job.
Yes, and part of “looking out for you” is scaring people into thinking the federal budget is as dangerous as Al Qaeda.
In the next segment Fox News contributors Juan Williams and Mary Katharine Ham spent most of their time reassuring O’Reilly he’s just the kind of great guy doing a great job he just told us he is.
For extra suck-up points, Williams threw in props for O’Reilly’s vicious attacks on the gay Speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives:
When I think about some of the stuff you’ve done defending children in this society from people who are perverts and abusers – the whole Jessica’s Law thing – that’s deserved righteous indignation.
Williams did – in the gentlest possible way – kinda, sorta chide O’Reilly for his behavior toward Colmes:
I’m not sure I agree with you. I think Alan’s right. I think the president has reduced the trajectory of spending in our country. But when you stand up and make the case, I listen, Bill, and I must tell you something: I don’t think it helps you when you yell, ‘Liar,’ when you call people ‘BS agents’ and all that. I think it diminishes attention to the substance of what you have to say and you do have substance. You have an argument.
O’Reilly’s answer? I shouldn’t have said the word, “liar,” even though Colmes was lying:
Well, look, I said that the use of the word, ‘liar’ was not a good – that I shouldn’t have done that. But Colmes wasn’t telling the truth. Simple as that. He wasn’t.
…If you’re not going to acknowledge (that Obama has refused to cut a single program) or Alan’s not going to acknowledge it, then you’re misleading the public, you know, and I don’t buy that.
Ham did her part for the cause:
Chill out, whiny babies. Sometimes we have fights and then we apologize after we’re done.
Then O’Reilly revealed how his behavior is merely a tactic for the greater good:
Don’t you understand that when I engage in this kind of hyperbole (as he did with Colmes), that the whole nation, indeed the whole world is engaged then on the subject? I don’t really give a hoot what people think about me. I don’t care.
That’s why O’Reilly devoted an entire later segment to the Denver Post’s takedown of him on his Jessica’s Law attack on the Colorado Speaker.
…So that’s part of the modus operandi here, when I get so frustrated ‘cause people aren’t paying attention to this, and they have to, that I use that technique to get everybody involved.
That’s right. It’s all for us, not for him.
Williams gushed:
It works! …I’ve been here, you know, about 16 years with you and the idea of real, honest, robust, fiery, angry, impassioned debate is The Factor. It’s the No Spin Zone.
…Look, you’re doing your job when you stand up and you say, ‘I don’t think that’s right. I think it’s wrong.’ …You are making a point that the entire world is now in touch with, Bill.
O’Reilly concluded, “That’s right. And then that’s the greater good that’s served from some of this over-the-top stuff.”
Next thing you know O’Reilly will be chiding liberals for not appreciating all his magnanimous efforts on our behalf.
'Bullying' Or 'Righteous Anger'? O'Reilly And Guests Debate His Outburst Against Alan Colmes
It's been nearly a week since Bill O'Reilly shouted down Alan Colmes for "lying" about President Obama's willingness to cut spending, but Monday night the showdown was still the top story on The O'Reilly Factor.
The commenters are trying to make the lack of information somehow interesting. They should just shut up and air a nice documentary while we wait.
Like me, Joe, you’ve been luckier – perhaps even more capable – than others. Bully for you, but your smugness suggests you’re still pretty young and perhaps not yet the bearer of any obligations towards anybody than yourself.
Now, I’m old enough to know for a fact that anybody’s luck can run out and I trust that you’ll be ashamed of today’s selfishness should you ever be unfortunate enough to hear your own kids crying with hunger or the cold, when you can’t pay for the painkillers needed by a family member with terminal cancer, etc. Imperfect as it is, I consider Obamacare to be most Christ-like measure taken by the society of the USA since Medicare and Medicaid. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the President at that time was Reagan: whuudda thunk?
Every study I’ve seen or heard about has found that the vast majority of the people on food stamps or welfare are not moochers but people with no or only a low-paying job (WalMart!), including mothers abandoned by the father of their children. That’s a fact, son. And it’s mind-boggling to hear people (not you … yet) blame the mother (!). Fox never presents the stories about people who game the system in the broader context because that would reveal how dishonest their outrage is.
Now, the obligation to care for others is one of Jesus’ strongest teachings. His parable about the mother who put her last two coins into the charity urn tells us that – even 2000 years ago – it was the have-nots who were most likely to be generous towards others. There are, of course, exceptions as with anything involving human beings but Jesus praised her not those who could have given but didn’t. The solution to abuse of the system is better screening and monitoring; killing the system would be a most un-Christ-like thing to do.
Most of the people on welfare are what the sociologists call the “working poor” (aka struggling with dignity"). Despising them is demeaning to you, not to them.
Enjoy your youth and good health but do try and put yourself in the shoes of people less fortunate than you.
And don’t forget that it would be totally hypocritical of you to apply for assistance any time and for any reason. Crying’s good for the kids: builds character, etc. etc.
Sheesh. People like Joe really do get under my skin. His only good feature is that he hasn’t (yet) claimed to be a Christian. Will now go and see if the smoke is white or black at the Vatican.
I am now going on my 4th year of being homeless so I am nowheres near being in the top 5%, more like the bottom 1%. But here’s the thing. I avail myself of no government handouts whatsoever. I don’t collect food stamps or a welfare check and I’m not on any lists for Section 8 Housing. And I’m doing just fine without any help from the taxpayers thank you very much. I’m not starving and I don’t miss having a real bed to sleep in. Look. Its not the government’s job to bail people out with all these social safety nets. People get along just fine without them. I’m proof of that. And as far as your “entitlements” go sure you’re paying into them but once you start collecting them you eventually(if you live long enough) use up anything you actually contributed into these funds and just continue to get a check off somebody’s elses contribution. Do you think that’s fair ? I don’t. Its just another form of welfare.
“I guess easy success isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be.”
Especially when you INHERIT A STOCK PORTFOLIO 100% FREE OF CAPITAL GAINS TAXES when your father kicks the bucket like O’Lielly’s father (William O’Reilly Sr.) did back in 1986. You can bet the house that stock portfolio would be worth AT LEAST SEVEN FIGURES today.
BOR’s ego just won’t let him admit that he was wrong – that Alan named a program as BOR demanded and that Kirsten’s use of facts totally outed him as an unreasonable, factually-challenged Obama critic (who has no problem moving the goalposts in a desperate attempt to save face). And he has the nerve to label those who dared criticize his inappropriate behavior as “hacks”? Bwaaah!
So here it is roughly a week later and BOR is doing yet another segment about himself. Typical as BOR likes nothing more than talking about himself even if it is to lamely defend his rude, unprofessional behavior as being (laughably!) “righteous”. As far as him saying that he doesn’t care what people say about him, LOL, give me a break! BOR is the most thin-skinned, retaliatory talking head out there. He even said on his radio show that he has people checking every day to see where/how his name is mentioned in the news/on the Internet. Someone who doesn’t care about what people think of him wouldn’t bother with such pettiness.
And to claim that he’s not doing any of this for the fame or the money?! The guy who pimps his books at the end of every show? The who started doing tours so more people can hear him yap? The guy who goes to Vanity Fair’s Oscar party to rub elbows with the swells (despite his claim that he hates all the Oscar hoopla)? The supposed serious analyst who likes to take bit parts in Hollywood productions? BOR isn’t looking for money and fame? Yeah, riiiiight. LOL! OMG, he must truly think we are stupid.
I guess what gets me the most is BOR’s saying that his angry outburst was just a tactic to get the folks’ attention. If true, then he is absolutely despicable. BOR deliberately chose to berate and humiliate a colleague for the sake of his own political/personal agenda. That is low, cowardly and disgusting – and should forever disqualify BOR as being thought of as any kind of credible analyst/commentator. Like you said, Ellen, the “hacks” didn’t diminish him – BOR did it all by himself.
William J. O’reilly Sr. must be proud. As I said before Junior is a Cow Chip off the old block.
People gave up a pretty sizeable chunk of their pay to contribute towards programs like Social Security and Medicare. That’s why they’re called “entitlements”. Medicaid is nothing more, nothing less than a civil obligation to care for the unfortunate.
Trying to pass off the retired and the ill as free-loaders (the famous 47%) is a mightily un-Christian effort that the Foxy faithful undertake with demonic glee.
FWIW, I qualify as a member of the 5% segment but my parents taught me to be both grateful and generous towards others not so lucky. Personally, I find it hard to enjoy my fortune while others suffer from hunger and poverty.
With that, I’m done feeding the troll.
It could very well happen to me, you or anyone else reading this one day. Odds are it has or at least to someone we know. Why is having a safety net to catch you in case you fall off the tightrope such a bad thing? It’s no different than those who oppose health care when they have it, or who oppose an increase in minimum wage when they are not making anything close to it.
It’ll be interesting to see when Alan is on tonight if Bill can twist this to where Alan must accept some responsibility for Bill’s behavior and apologize to his holiness and knell before Zod.
Last night on Ed Schultz’s show he had on a guest (I didn’t catch her name) who said the problem with the Republican Party today is it has become male, pale and stale. I think that pretty much sums up not only today’s right wing, but your typical Fox News viewer who worship Bill and his daily cartoon antics.
She seems to have a good sense of humor but studies suggest (aka “many people say”) that even the most sunny disposition can be damaged by over-exposure to stupidity.
What is wrong with his aging audience?? Don’t they remember anything he said from a previous night??
P.S. My mom is in a rehab center here on Long Island recovering from a total knee replacement. Has a roommate. Probably in her early eighties, broke her hip in a fall and suffers from some dementia. Her husband is at the facility from 7:30 am to about 8:00 pm. Her TV is on Faux morning, day and night. Husband never turns the channel once just Faux all day. I tell my mom every time I visit, they are O’Loofah’s and Klannity’s typical audience. She just shushes me with a big grin on her face, cause she has to share a room with her.
CAPTAIN KIRK: Spock, what’s the matter?
MR. SPOCK: Captain, my irony meter just exploded.
.
Nice to know that he’ll still dedicate a segment to admitting he didn’t mean it.
Juan as usual was disgusting,kissing the ass of the puppet master,have a little self pride Juan.
