I love it. Al Franken, who attacked Bill O'Reilly, calling Bill a liar, because Bill made a mistake, is a proven liar as we see here in the article from Michelle Malkin (what did she do to her hair? she looks ten years older with the new 'do!)
What's so funny about abstinence, Al Franken?
by Michelle Malkin
August 22, 2003
Left-wing "comedian" Al Franken got tripped up by some big fat lies this week. He's sorry he got caught, but smugly silent about making fun of countless American kids who have taken abstinence vows.
Thanks to Court TV's Smoking Gun Web site (www.thesmokinggun.com), we now know that the Saturday Night Live leftover abused his position as an "academic fellow" (now that's funny) at the Harvard University Kennedy School of Government's Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy in a puerile attempt to trick Attorney General John Ashcroft into publicly sharing his personal experience with abstinence.
Franken urged Ashcroft to share his abstinence story for "a book about abstinence programs in our public schools entitled, 'Savin' It!'" (lie). He assured Ashcroft that the book would document how the Bush administration is "setting the right example for America's youth" (lie). And he breezily informed Ashcroft that he had already "received wonderful testimonies from HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson, William J. Bennett, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, Senator Rick Santorum, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice" (lie, lie, lie, lie, lie).
Franken sent the bogus solicitation to Ashcroft on Harvard's letterhead earlier this summer, without the Shorenstein Center's knowledge or approval. A few weeks later, Franken sent an apology to Ashcroft. In truth, Franken confessed, he deliberately deceived Ashcroft while trying to gather material for his "satirical" anti-conservative book being rushed to print this week, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right". Franken sheepishly informed Ashcroft that the book will contain "only one or two chapters dealing with abstinence-only education."
"My biggest regret is sending the letter on Shorenstein Center stationery," Franken sniveled. "I am very embarrassed to have put them in this awkward and difficult position, and I ask you not to hold it against the Center, the Kennedy School, or Harvard in general."
So Franken is remorseful about offending his high-minded liberal benefactors at Harvard, who supported his book "research" under the guise of "bridging the gap between journalists and scholars" and "helping the press improve its role in democracy." But he has nothing to say about thoughtlessly ridiculing a growing movement that promotes self-restraint, strong morals, fidelity and good health.
To the dismay of kiddie condom-pushers in Hollywood and the ivory tower, abstinence education programs such as Project Reality, True Love Waits and Virginity Rules are rapidly gaining popularity among American youth. Hundreds of thousands of young men and women have signed chastity pledges as part of both faith-based and secular programs. Celebrity role models include 2003 Miss America Erika Harold and basketball star A.C. Green.
Professor Franken will no doubt argue in his new book that abstinence programs have no scientific basis. As if the failed contraceptive-centric model of the past two decades does? A peer-reviewed Pediatrics journal showed that sex-ed programs "neither increased contraceptive use, nor reduced teenage pregnancy rates." A study of 23 school-based sex-education programs, published in the May/June 1994 issue of Public Health Reports, concluded much the same. More recently, a pro-sex education study found in 2001 that out of some 250 programs, only eight (a whopping 3 percent) purportedly reduced "sexual risk-taking, pregnancy, and childbearing among teens."
Another study published in the Journal of School Health noted that "while most adolescents know condoms provide one effective way to avoid HIV infection, less than half of sexually active adolescents ages 15-17 used condoms consistently." The annual failure rate for condoms used as birth control is about 10 percent for adults; the figure doubles for teenage users.
When all else fails, health officials celebrate the number of birth-control devices distributed to teens as the ultimate measure of efficacy. But this is like measuring the effectiveness of welfare programs by the number of checks passed out.
Ridiculing chaste young people and their abstinent role models as oddballs and prudes may score Franken a few points at Hollywood and Harvard cocktail parties. But if this intellectual poseur thinks he can improve democracy through nasty pranksterism and mockery, the only one he's kidding is himself.
Also, check out Jacoby's newest article. I cannot stop laughing at Davis and cronies who go on and on about how all of this is a Republican conspiracy...even tho, the democrats aren't supporting him either, and he's got the lowest ratings of any governor in state history. He lied to the people...he has a bad record of giving contracts to only those who helped him get elected...he's crooked, face it, folks.
CALIFORNIA'S REASONABLE RECALL
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
August 24, 2003
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/08/24/californias_reasonable_recall/
George Will and George Stephanopoulos, the ideological yin and yang of ABC's "This Week," normally don't agree on much. But they are as one in dismissing California's recall election as preposterous.
"A terrible idea," Will scoffs. "An army of disgruntled voters exercising their ridiculous right to utter a collective 'Oops!' " Stephanopoulos, echoing California Democrats, derides "the whole freak-show nature, joke nature" of the campaign.
They are hardly the only ones with nothing good to say about the upcoming vote on whether to replace Governor Gray Davis. Newsweek mocks the recall as a "California circus" and "madness," while Time describes it as "the most surreal spectacle since the 2000 Florida recount." In the Aug. 19 Los Angeles Times, Larry Sabato, an oft-quoted scholar from the University of Virginia, pronounced it "tyranny of the mob" -- "popular but destructive." Two days earlier, a different academic -- Bruce Cain of Berkeley -- weighed in with a piece calling it "an accident waiting to happen."
To Ted Koppel, who took up the subject on "Nightline," the recall campaign is "a train wreck" that Iraqis must be chortling over. The Economist sees in it "another step away from representative democracy." The editor of The American Prospect, a left-wing journal, slams the approaching vote as a "new-age coup d'etat," while California's state librarian writes it off as "some kind of collective nervous breakdown." Peter Schrag, a noted California journalist, characterizes it as "tragedy, farce, and a lot more . . . as portentous as it is bizarre."
Governor Davis is against the recall, of course; he fumes that it is "undemocratic." On the other hand, former congressman and White House chief of staff Leon Panetta fumes that it is "democracy run amok." And The Washington Post's David Broder, an adamant foe of direct democracy, denounces it as a "nearly unprecedented perversion of representative government" and "the byproduct of almost everything that has gone wrong in our political system."
Harsh words. But if the recall is really as dreadful as all that, why on earth did 1.6 million Californians sign petitions to put it on the ballot? And why is the turnout on Oct. 7 expected to be higher than the 45 percent that voted in the general election last November? Is it just possible that California's voters may actually know what they're doing?
You'd never know it from the media coverage, which has mostly painted the recall campaign as a wacky Left Coast carnival, but there is in fact a strong case to be made for Davis's recall. When he ran for re-election last year, he assured Californians that the state's budget problems were modest and manageable. Only afterward did he come clean: California was in a terrible fiscal predicament, the worst in its history. The state's budget gap soon climbed to $38 billion, more than the deficits of all the other states combined. So dire was California's condition that Standard & Poor's downgraded its bond rating to just above junk status.
Moreover, Californians remember Davis's disastrous supervision of electricity deregulation in his first term; many are also put off by his voracious fundraising, and his reputation for demanding contributions from anyone seeking to do business with the state. It is not for nothing that Davis is the most unpopular governor in California's history.
Whether all this adds up to a compelling case to recall him is a serious question for serious voters, and the campaign deserves more serious coverage than it has gotten. Yes, there are some ludicrous publicity hounds on the ballot, and yes, there is a decided only-in-California aura to the candidacy of Arnold Schwarzenegger. But that doesn't detract from the gravity of California's condition or the legitimacy of the recall as a vehicle for repairing it. One of the world's largest and most important political entities is in the midst of a leadership crisis. It is irresponsible and cynical for the press to be treating it as a circus.
The pundits' dyspeptic disapproval of California's recall procedure is meritless. Why should Californians be condemned for making use of a provision that has been in their constitution since 1911? They have not exactly been promiscuous with it: This will be the first statewide recall election in California history. If successful, it will mark only the second time a sitting governor anywhere has been recalled. (The first was North Dakota's Lynn Frazier, who was ousted in 1921.)
For all the talk of "democracy run amok," voters in states that have the recall use their power sparingly. Like the ability to pass or repeal laws via the ballot box -- initiative and referendum -- the recall is a restraint on the power of arrogant politicians and entrenched special interests. In a government based on checks and balances and the sovereignty of the people, it is prudent to have a constitutional tool for removing officeholders who are so abusive or incompetent that it would be unwise to leave them in power until the next election.
A train wreck? A coup? Far from it. California's recall campaign is simply an exercise in democratic accountability. Whatever the outcome on Oct. 7, the cause of self-government will advance
.
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)
I know the bigger point, but in regards to Bill making a mistake, it was more than a simple mistake. It was a lit, then a lie on top of the lie, then an attack on Al for pointing out the lie.
Don't get comfused here. Bill lies just as much as Al does, but don't defend Bill as it being a "mistake" just because you like him, otherwise Al can be said to have made "mistakes" as well.
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at August 25, 2003 08:34 AMbill didnt lie. he made a mistake. hes admitted making the mistake numerous times...mentioning it on his radio show and tv show.
how do you get that it was a lie? he misspoke, and he has since corrected himself numerous times.
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at August 25, 2003 11:31 AMActually, he lied. He said he won a peabody for his work on Hard Copy. He didn't.
Hard Copy/Inside Edition got a Polk award.
But get this....they got this Polk award AFTER Bill had left the show.
Did he tell anyone that? No....he lied.
Not until it was fully out in the open did he admit he "mis-spoke"
THen on his show, he quietly attacked Al by accusing him of attack journalism, and DENYS on his show that he ever said he won a peabody award...another lie...
http://www.booktv.org/feature/index.asp?segID=3630&schedID=196
Thats the link to the transctipt on C-SPAN
http://www.booktv.org/ram/feature/0603/btv060803_4.ram
Thats the transcript itself.
Forward it to about 40 minutes into it where Al gets up and talks about Bill and you will see what I am talking about.
Anything else?
Sorry, not the transcript, it's the actual video.
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at August 25, 2003 03:54 PMive already watched the video. and youre wrong. bill said from the get-go that it was the SHOW itself that won the award not he himself. he was defending the show as real news and not just tabloid stuff...he wasnt defending his position on the show, but the show overall. so youre wrong, he never claimed he won any award on that show.
he knew the award was won AFTER he left, which is why its all the much easier to make the mistake as to which award it was.
he has said all of that on both of his shows (radio and tv)...and he mentioned most of that in the video you posted. its true...franken has one MISTAKE, calls it a lie, and qualifies bill as a liar for his nonsense book. thats absurd. in 6 yrs, one MISTAKE.
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at August 25, 2003 04:19 PMThen why did he, on his show, deny ever saying Hard Copy won a Peabody after Al exposed him? A lit or another "mistake"?
Sorry, I laughed at that " in 6 yrs, one MISTAKE." comment....but anyway...
show me all the lies bill has told, since its so funny. and dont even try to post anything from the leftists at fair. they tried to blame HBO for lying about a bunch of stuff in their movie live from baghdad, but there were no lies.
i dont recall bill ever denying that he ever said that. why on earth would someone lie about that to begin with? theyre both awards...theyre both prestigious awards...one a bit more than the other. the man has better things to lie about IF he was a liar to begin with.
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at August 25, 2003 06:34 PM"i dont recall bill ever denying that he ever said that."
I do. You might want to re-check your sources.
As for the rest of Bills lies, I'll dig em up for ya ;)
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at August 25, 2003 08:00 PM"ive already watched the video. and youre wrong. bill said from the get-go that it was the SHOW itself that won the award not he himself."
- Then why did he use the pronoun WE won a peabody?
- You've misunderstood Franken. Don't feel bad, because apparently so did Bill. He said Bill lied about making a mistake.
This is a transcript of what Franken says Bill said:
A few weeks later, a columnist from NewsDay picks
it up and writes in a column not all the
facts on the factor are facts, or something like that. And then you do a special thing, you're out with Micheal Wolf, and... on attack journalism, it's your, you introduce a personal story on attack journalism, you say "it's personal to me because some writers aren't being fair about what they say about your humble servant. And then you say you'll give an example:
HERE IS THE LIE
|
|
\|/
"Guy says about me a couple week's ago, guy says O'Reilly said he won a peabody award... never said it. You can't find a transcript
where I said it. There's no one on earth you could bring in, that would say I said it.
------------------END OF LIE----------------------
There, I literally "drew you a picture". Do you understand?
As far as Bill lies go, here:
1. Bill said "you wouldn't see me on CNN". He said this after he had already appeared on CNN and was invited back several times. He just turned down the invitations.
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/12/03/column.billpress/
2. Bill also said "You know, in Europe, this kind of child molestation and child rape is – you know, they let them do it. They don’t enforce it. And in countries like Denmark, it’s EVEN LEGAL." According to the Danish embassy, this is also a lie.
Source: http://www.denmarkemb.org/oreilly.html
3. O’Reilly claimed that "58 percent of single-mom homes are on welfare." This wasn't true either.
Source: http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/oreillyspin1.htm
4. Bill also said that "37 percent of students at Florida universities were black". In fact, only 18% were.
Source: http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/oreillyspin1.htm
5. Bill also said ecstacy was "controlled by Middle Eastern people out of Holland, that’s where it comes in here from." Not only is this not true, it's also HILARIOUS. Go ahead, try reading it with a straight face.
ugh. more lefties who cant win an argument without skewing the facts.
one thing...anyone who links to oreillysucks.com as evidence...well. what on earth could you say about someone who does this?
first off, he said WE as in THE SHOW...the show he helped make popular. its nice that you try to mix up what he says, when anyone can see from the context that he never meant HE won the award. he said WE won it and hes talked about the fact that the award was won AFTER he left on numerous occasions.
as for the welfare statistic...bill has already explained this one as well. someone mentioned it, and he explained it quite nicely. i dont recall exactly what the explanation was, but he never lied about it.
as for the other things you listed...clearly, again- not lies. either mistakes or untrue and bill was right. not sure about all of them, and i dont recall what has been said about the stats.
keep telling yourself that hes a liar. i can guarantee youre the type of person that says clinton was one of the best presidents we ever had, and im sure you wouldnt call him a liar. its okay tho...like ive said to others- congrats on being perfect and never making a mistake...and if you DO ever make a mistake (god forbid), i hope we have a swat team at your door waiting to enforce the fact that it was not a mistake, but indeed...a lie.
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at August 27, 2003 07:00 PM"ugh. more lefties who cant win an argument without skewing the facts."
- What about the other sources I provided you with? Or do you designate the Danish Embassy as "lefties".
"one thing...anyone who links to oreillysucks.com as evidence...well. what on earth could you say about someone who does this?"
- The column you posted can also be found on the right-wing Townhall.com, and Michelle Malkin is infamously conservative. You also link to Jerry Falwell. So should I just write off all the facts they cite because they have an obvious political bias? No author is completely impartial, but that doesn't mean we can just ignore the facts they provide.
"first off, he said WE as in THE SHOW"
- No, there's no evidence that he said anything more than "we won a peabody", or "we won TWO PEABODIES" (he can't count, apparently). He never specified the show. But this is a small point. Neither of us know if he meant to imply that he had won a peabody or not, so I won't try to read his mind.
"as for the welfare statistic...bill has already explained this one as well. someone mentioned it, and he explained it quite nicely. i dont recall exactly what the explanation was, but he never lied about it."
- The source I gave you also mentioned his "explanation" and ripped that apart aswell. Unless he gave yet another explanation of his innacurate quote I'm not aware of.
"as for the other things you listed...clearly, again- not lies. either mistakes or untrue and bill was right. not sure about all of them, and i dont recall what has been said about the stats."
- Truly silly. CNN is lying about Bill appearing on their show? The DANISH EMBASSY is lying about Bill saying that child molestation is legal? Is the whole world out to get this poor man?
- What about when Bill lied about never saying he won a peabody when he had. For gods sake, I DREW A PICTURE OF IT for you. Do I have to put it on a billboard?
"keep telling yourself that hes a liar. i can guarantee youre the type of person that says clinton was one of the best presidents we ever had, and im sure you wouldnt call him a liar."
- I'm lost. What does Bill Clinton have to do with this? How long has it been since the man was out of office? What could he possibly have to do with anything? You're wrong, by the way. If you're interested on my feelings towards Clinton you can check out Hoodlum's message board and read my posts about his action/inaction in Kosovo and Rwanda. Actually, I really recommend you read it, since it shows how two people can have a informative and intelligent debate without bringing up irrelevant diversions like a president who's been out of office for 3 years.
"its okay tho...like ive said to others- congrats on being perfect and never making a mistake...and if you DO ever make a mistake (god forbid), i hope we have a swat team at your door waiting to enforce the fact that it was not a mistake, but indeed...a lie"
- You know what, if I ever falsely accuse a country of legalizing child molestation, on a news broadcast, then I sincerely hope I'm seriously reprimanded. I'm funny that way.
Posted by: lowdown at August 27, 2003 10:14 PMRead Al Franken's book. It will show you quotes from Bill O'reilly lying in an attempt to make himself look like and award winning journalist. I used to be a fan of O'reilly until the book.
Posted by: david at September 7, 2003 11:52 PMThe Bill O'Reilly 21 Spin Tips:
1) Adamantly declare your show a "No-Spin Zone" and repeat this often.
Soon it will appear that your spin is not really spin!
2) Make as many vague general statements as you like because:
a)if they don't pan out, who cares?
b)if they do, then you can take credit for being FIRST to tackle the
issue!
3) Go for the easy targets: politicians and celebrities, and if they
don't know who you are or decline to appear on your show, then portray
them as being "afraid" of you because they know they're "wrong".
4) Always refer to yourself as a "reporter" and to your show as a
"news program", no matter how sensasionalistic the topics you have
chosen.
5) Label everyone who doesn't agree with you a "liberal", and use as
many colorful adjectives as possible when describing the left wing.
Label everyone and everything--you can never label people enough!
6) However, never use colorful adjectives when describing your
position or that of other conservatives. Portray your position as
scientific granite-hard fact!
7) If you say "I only deal in facts" with enough proud anger, you will
easily offset anyone who questions you and they'll be less likely to
demand your proof. Or just lie and take the high road.
8) In the rare instance someone does persue proof of your "facts",
just bulldoze them with questions and opinions to create an air of
'you-must-be-crazy-to-believe-otherwise'.
9) If someone continues to demand cited facts, then say "Everyone
we've talked to says so." Then book a few selected inconspicuous
guests in the future to come on and back your statement. You can
easily represent any group's opinion in any way you want by doing
things this way!
10) Pick several obscure fringe issues to bring up during each show.
It's, of course, a breeze to be right when ranting about them and this
scores easy sensational-points.
11) The more questions you can fire at a guest without giving them a
chance to answer, the more "authority" status you gain and the more
credibility they lose. AKA The O'Reilly Master Method.
12) Whenever you get into trouble during a debate just align yourself
with the working class. In fact, you can pull out your
"hero-for-the-struggling-people" act for any tight spot you may find
yourself in. Never underestimate how powerful it is to expolit this!
A related and untouchable spin is the "hero-for-the-little-children"
act.
13) If you have a guest who is beating you in debate, simply overpower
them with questions, demands for facts, or just change the subject
with the segue "Ok, look, let's get back to the issue," and then bring
up a new issue. Remember, it is extremely easy to make an unprepared
guest look bad.
14) Inbetween questions make little comments, unfinished question
fragments, or subtle sarcastic quips that express what you really
think, then quickly interrupt yourself with your next scripted
question. These little remarks are pure golden spin!
15) If you have ever been to a foreign country always bring that fact
up, especially if you've been to one where violent conflict was
occuring (or at least nearby). This is a great defense if ever your
'journalistic integrity' is threatened or if you need to interject
some patriotism to throw off a guest.
16) When all else fails, make a face of pity and say something
religious like "Well, I know God blesses you," or "I don't think Jesus
would do that, but...."
17) At the end of every interview just say "We'll let the viewers
decide." This nicely removes your responsibility for most of the
things you've just said.
18) Always take your position to the extreme when dealing with simple
mundane issues. This keeps the sensationalism ball rolling.
19) Bring attention to ALL press you receive, good or bad. Also talk
about press that is NOT about you as if it IS.
20) End your show with a humble-pie slice of criticism from your
viewers, but always remember to follow each little run of bad opinions
with one or two of praise. This end-spin is useful in many, many ways.
21) Portray all newspeople as 'afraid to ask' the 'hard-hitting'
questions that you do, and tout that you get 'serious answers' even if
most of your show is factually impotent. This effective spin is called
the 'Viagra Tactic'.
It is frightening to know that more and more authors are informing the public about how right-winged the media has become. The conservatives continue to bash the liberals with skewed facts that they get from the right wing media. The right wing media is actually the media that represents all of the major newspapers in this country because they are all owned by conglomerate corporations that lean toward the right. Now, how the hell can any conservative believe what they believe when all the information they get comes from these sensationalized corporate funded assholes who lie and gossip rather than inform their audience with real facts?? How can someone BELIEVE the crap that's sponsored by Disney or Time Warner when all their interest is in marketing the news as if it were a prime time sit-com? Let me tell you stupid conservatives something...your news...THE news IS propaganda. Bill OReilly is trying to save his job by calling Al Franken an "propagandist". Some day, the time will come and you will realize just how brainwashed you've become. America has become a pathetic country when it comes to these morons waving the flag who cannot acknowledge the problems and mistakes that their own country make. They are brainwashed by everything on tv. they refuse to be skeptic because they dont know how to think for themselves. Meanwhile everyone else...the liberals who really LOVE their country, the ones who dont want to see it fall apart and are trying to wake people up are being called "unpatriotic". That's just plain disturbing. That's like telling someone "stop thinking. Be dumb. Follow everything you see on tv. Eat some Cheetos and pick up a Tom Clancy book....if you can read that is...And God Bless America!
Posted by: Brian at September 17, 2003 12:06 AMthe ny times, the la times, the wash post...all leaning to the left for the most part. largest newspapers in the country. youre right, theres this huge right wing voice in the print media.
the rest of what you said...pretty funny as well. but, i needed a laugh.
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at September 17, 2003 02:18 AMAl Franken needs to look up the word lie in the dictionary. Showing a quote of someone saying something that is factually incorrect is not sufficeint evidence to determine the person is lying. You need to also prove the statement was said purposefully to decieve.
Posted by: whatever at September 17, 2003 03:17 AMhe had to claim SOMEONE was lying to sell his book, huh? why not attack the top guy in news? bill never lied, and he has proven it numerous times. those who claim he did lie just cant stand his views, so they try to label him a liar. anyone can call another person a liar...doesnt make it true. then again, it did take 14 researchers to help franken write this tripe.
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at September 17, 2003 03:24 AMWell Mr. Bozeman - if you are incapable of independent thought and analysis, I feel sorry for you. O'Reilly may not be as horrible as some of us think he is, but he DID LIE (purposefully and with forethought to deceive his audience and the public - a definite no-no for a self-declared independent journalist).
It's not an honest mistake that Franken was being critical of, it's the REACTION of DENIAL, DENIAL, and DENIAL from O'Reilly that is his point. The lie wasn't about the polk/peabody - the lie was when he DENIED ever saying it anywhere - that was an intentional deception.
By the way, feel free to read Franken's chapters on OTHER O'Reilly lies which are frankly more egregious thank the Polk/Peabody incident - since they are purposefully designed to mislead his audience about him. The two worst offenses are:
1) O'reilly's claim of "independent" voting status - he has been a registered republican for years (which he denies in transcripts) - Franken's book has a copy of the registration form.
and
2) O'Reilly's DAILY quote about his "humble" upbringing, which while it is not comparable to the silver spoon childhood of say, George Bush, was very Middle Class and NOT in Levittown, but in Westbury - an area much higher up economically than Levittown. When O'Reilly is confronted about this, he responds that it was the "Westbury suburb of Levittown." Both are completely separate municipalities.
Finally,
Hmmm... 14 students to help an author on a project... versus a staff of oh, lets say conservatively, 50 PAID PROFESSIONALS on O'reilly's show....
O'Reilly is a Journalist, Hunh?
Posted by: J. Alexander at September 17, 2003 12:17 PMliberals...please continue with the funny stuff. he never lied. he came out right after it happened and corrected himslf. again, im glad you all are perfect and never make mistakes. if you did, wed jump down your throat, screaming "LIAR!!!"
you can see bills house in the a and e biography. he clearly grew up how he said he did!
a staff of 50 to do a news program. big difference between that and 14 researchers to write what franken himself calls satire! probably not a difference to you, since youre so gung ho with your left wing ideals.
dont ask me about him being registetered a republican. for a while there, i was getting tuff from the dems, saying i was registered with them. i guess that makes me a democrat. and when bill bashes republicans and praises democrats...what doyou call that? its that crazy right wing conspiracy stuff, huh?
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at September 17, 2003 03:56 PMTaj
I can see that you want to follow Bush and his strom troopers into the new 3rd reich.
Fox is the propaganda wing for the new system.
If you take a fair and balanced look at Fox, you cant help but see which way they leen.
All democrats must be 3rd graders with all their name calling. Maybe if they tried offering some constructive views and not screaming names they may get some respect, but believe me, the American people are seeing the democrats for what they really are.
lol. storm troopers. nice..you make yourself look SO smart when you compare g. bush to hitler! genius.
al franken...aka psychotic man made an ass of himself again when he went to deans last rally and went on a tirade, saying the f-word at least twice...caling brit hume a bleeping bleep because he didnt like humes interview with president bush!
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at September 23, 2003 03:21 AMSorry buddy, but Franken actually states in his book that his letter to Ashcroft and others was a joke. That's the difference between Franken and a guy like O'Reilly. The former actually admits to playing the occasional prank on a right-wing nutjob. The latter, when he lies, does so purely for spite and when caught lying he even denies that he told the lie to begin with. One example is when O'Reilly actually can be accused of having compared the Koran to Mein Kampf.
This occurred last year, when in a discussion with a college professor about the teaching to students about the Koran in some universities the Factor host stated, "I mean, I wouldn't give people a book during World War II on the emperor is God in Japan, would you?...I wouldn't read the book. And I'll tell you why: I wouldn't have read Mein Kampf either. If I were going to UNC in 1941, and you, Professor, said, 'Read Mein Kampf,' I would have said, 'Hey, Professor, with all due respect, shove it. I ain't reading it.'"
Maybe if you'd actually read "Lies And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair And Balanced Loot At the Right," instead of nitpicking on some joke that Franken admitted he tried to pull on John Asscroft, maybe if you actually had something on Franken, you'd have an ounce of credibility. The trouble with you neocon dittoheads is, you can't back your stuff up. Guys like Franken and Michael Moore can. And you're so desperate that people will read their stuff and start thinking for themselves, you'll drag out any lie and/or exaggeration to debunk it all. Again, without adding a shred of factual evidence to back it up.
Do yourself a favor; pull your head out of Limbaugh's not-so-tiny ass so you can get some oxygen to those brain cells of yours. Maybe then, you'll learn to think for yourself.
Posted by: Mike Kwiatkowski at September 30, 2003 09:51 PMMore on the lies told by O'Reilly:
Guys says he grew up in Levittown, New York. But according to his own mother, the family lived in Westbury, New York--a wholly separate town on Long Island. Now, as anyone who can read maps can attest, upon inspection of the area on maps you will not find any section of Levittown called Westbury. O'Reilly later told another lie about his hometown, trying to say that there USED to be a Westbury section, but that it has since been re-named. Upon asking town officials, you may find that once again, this is untrue. You may find that there was never a section of Levittown called Westbury; the only Westbury that exists and that ever existed does so in a different part of Long Island.
I live in Cleveland, Ohio, which is the largest city in Cuyahoga County. I was born there, and it is on my birth certificate. On paper. Now, if I told you I was from the Parma Hts. section of Cleveland, I would be lying. Because Parma Hts. is and always has been a separate city in Cuyahoga. I cannot claim that it is part of Cleveland. Once again, if I did you would be able to call me a liar. But when O'Reilly does the same thing about Levittown and Westbury, you'd say he's telling the truth.
Now, the Peabody incident can be attributed as that of a stubborn Irishman who cannot admit to anyone that he has erred, and who is so afraid of being proven wrong he'll lie in order to cover the original error. This is what Bill did regarding the Peabody.
You're trying to defend an indefensible position here Taj, and you know it. You haven'y brought out fact one to support your claims. Every time some "liberal" drags out some truth with which to smack you over the head (in the wholly proverbial sense), you resort to name-calling and the "liberal" label.
If that's all you've got to argue with, then I pity you.
Posted by: Mike Kwiatkowski at September 30, 2003 10:14 PMyou clearly didnt see oreilly's biography on a&e. he didnt lie about where he grew up. what reason would he have to do so?
and you said this
"Now, the Peabody incident can be attributed as that of a stubborn Irishman who
cannot admit to anyone that he has erred, and who is so afraid of being proven
wrong he'll lie in order to cover the original error. This is what Bill did
regarding the Peabody."
he ADMITTED numerous times that he 'erred'!! on his tv show and his radio show. so youre saying stuff that isnt even true now.
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at September 30, 2003 10:47 PMlol. by the way...michael moore can support his claims? are you insane? his last movie has been ripped up by so many people that its scary. he himself said it wasnt a documentary in the end...and he refuses to admit the plethora of lies he tells in that waste of celluloid.
but youre right, franken and moore can back up their nonsense. thats the funniest thing ive heard all day. now, lets call a bank in advance and have them give me a gun, then claim that everyone who pops down a grand walks out with a gun. or we can claim that a factory that makes satellite rockets is a factory that builds weapons of mass destruction! or we can show plaques on war memorials and claim that the plaque boasts about killing japanese, but it really doesnt and we left half of the wording out.
youre so right my friend...I need to go learn how to think for MYSELF. someone hand this guy a mirror.
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at September 30, 2003 10:53 PMFirst of all, no I didn't say anything untrue here. You did. The A&E biography failed to dig into the humongous pile of bull**** built up by O'Reilly over the years. The man's own mother even destroys the spin that he grew up in Levittown. She proudly stated that the family lived in Westbury, which while middle class wasn't exactly the "working-class" area O'Reilly claims to hail from.
Second, who is it that "ripped up" Moore's film? The NRA? LOL, try to actually check out the sources cited by Moore and Franken in their books. You may learn something. Like the NRA lies. A lot. Because they have a lot of influence and power in Washington to lose if people wake up to their spin.
How many lawsuits for libel and/or slander have been leveled at Moore or Franken? None. Why? Because their detractors know full well they haven't got a case. Not ONE of the sources listed in their books can be credibly refuted. As I usually do with those who really do spin, what facts do YOU have to back up YOUR claims? I'm pretty sure I already know what the answer will be, but I'll be a gentleman about it and ask anyway. What facts do you have?
When you've pulled your head out of your backside, feel free to answer me.
Posted by: Mike Kwiatkowski at October 1, 2003 04:18 PMBTW, I've taken the liberty of finding maps of Long Island around Levittown. Seems Westbury, the "section of Levittown" Bill O'Reilly claims to have grown up in, is about 6.67 miles Northwest of Levittown itself. I'll be posting the images on my site soon, and post a link for all to see.
Of course, if you're afraid to have people learn the truth that's understandable. I realize it's probably the worst thing in the world for you to be proven wrong. I know how that is. You're afraid. It's okay to be scared.
What isn't okay is to choose to remain ignorant upon being confronted with incontrovertable proof that a lie has been told by someone. This sort of denial is counter-productive and ultimately harmful to your larger position.
Go ahead. Check any map of Long Island. I dare you. Try to say that Westbury is part of Levittown. Watch thinking people laugh at and ridicule you for choosing to be the moron you are.
Posted by: Mike Kwiatkowski at October 2, 2003 03:05 PMumm sure then. im not bill o'reilly, and frankly ive never been to his house...nor do i have his house listed on a big map of the world. im sure he didnt lie about where he grew up. that would make no sense and wouldnt do anything for him. i dont talk to bill personally, so i also cannot answer to where exactly he lived from that info.
his friends from the neighborhood...many of whom he sees regularly still, say they grew up in leavittown. maybe theyre all a bunch of liars. golly, who knows.
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at October 3, 2003 05:43 PMI just came across this site by chance, and I have to say that you people must have nothing to do with your lives if you have time to actually research what Bill said, then find out exactly where he "really lived" and then pinpoint it on a map and post it on your site. I'm a fan of O'Reilly, and I don't always agree with some of his views. Those who think that one must either agree with all, or avoid at all cost, are truely closed minded. I do find it hard to believe that Bill would lie about where he grew up. You who are on this witch hunt to prove he did are no better than the liars you claim you're trying to expose. Besides, do we really know what period of his life Bill is talking about? I moved from state to state with my parents because my dad was in the military until I was almost in my teens, and if I were to say I grew up in "State X." then technically, I could be telling the truth. I think this whole thing is is getting blown way out of proportion, and is now being turned on Bill, when the issue should be on Franken and Humes. This squabbling of whether Bill is a liar or not is really not relevant, and neither is the government, or anything else. Both sides have a major problem with bringing issues into things that have nothing to do with them, and they try to use those to their advantage. It needs to stop.
And for the person that said they stopped watching Bill because of Al Franken's book, how impressionable have we become. What ever happened to the statement "don't believe everyhting that you read?" Use your brains to form your own opinions. Decide for yourselves. The person that wrote that book was definately too biased for somebody to form a true opinion about the issue at hand. And for those that form paradigms off of Bill's book as well, shame on you. Think for yourselves. Use that gift; it's not as hard as you think
Posted by: Tim Finch at October 4, 2003 10:35 PMThe difference between Al Franken's book and anything O'Reilly says is that Franken provides verifiable sources. If you don't want to believe Franken, that's no problem. You can subscribe to Nexis or simply do searches and find the source for just about every claim that he makes regarding O'Reilly.
And certainly I am making up my own mind. Take the Polk/Peabody thing--he didn't simply "misspeak." He really did believe they had won a Peabody. I'm not going to say that's a lie, that he mistakenly believed they had won a Peabody. But it WAS a lie to try to smear another journalist and say he never said it when he did--three times.
Posted by: Cat M. at October 9, 2003 12:47 PMive read all of oreillys books and i watch his show...ive been able to verify nearly everything he says. when i cant verify it, its because i cant find the proper info. franken on the other hand, is a joke. and you know it. but you dont like o'reilly, so you praise al.
he never said he didnt say it. he never tried to smear anyone. he corrected himself a number of times, yet franken stills goes on and on claiming that o'reilly lied about it. its just not true. you cannot in any way verify that oreilly lied about it, yet this is what franken claims...so, your claim of everything franken says being backed up is bogus. its okay tho...you can hate o'reilly if you want, doesnt mean you have to embrace the lies of franken.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at October 9, 2003 07:11 PMStumbled upon this site- very nice. My two cents:
I have read Franken's book (Liars, etc.), as well as read interviews of O'Reilly (also sat through a show or two). Say what you will about Franken but he did his research, everything he wrote can be referenced and verified. He even re-printed BOR's voter registration.
Aside from the book, what really comes across in my eyes is the fact that O'Reilly has such a thin skin. I mean, this guy gives people all kinds of static on his show but once someone confronts him off the show he whines like a baby.
And by the way, I read the L.A. Times every day and you could hardly call them a liberal-leaning paper. Michael Rodriguez is about the most right-leaning cartoonist in the nation. True, Robert Scheer has a column but it only appears once a week. Yes, the editorials are often left-leaning but who really cares, isn't it the NEWS they report that matters most?Bush-administration gaffes usually end up around page 8 my 'favorite' was the admission by Condi Rice that 'of course' Hussein had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and why do so many Americans believe he was involved? Oh brother.
Posted by: Nick at November 2, 2003 06:55 PMit cant be verified...because bill goes thru the issue in his new book, and hes talked about it numerous times on his tv show, his radio show...and there have been other articles printed about it. he never lied. franken refuses to retract the assertion that o'reilly was caught in a lie and then covered the lie up with a lie. bill made a mistake trying to defend his old program...he then went on to correct the mistake soon after it was brought to his attention. i havent read frankens book, but i know his account of o'reilly is totally false- you can do 5 mins of research online and verify as much.
i wouldnt put much into anything franken says...hes a unfunny hack who has now turned to name calling and vulgarity- he shows up at the dean campaign rally calling brit hume (a man who has done NOTHING to franken) a fucking idiot...i surely wouldnt put any trust in a man who personally attacks everyone who disagrees with him. if youre resorting to those tactics, its only because youre clearly wrong or youre flat out lying and name calling is now your only defense.
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at November 2, 2003 08:23 PMTaj, do you know the context of Franken's rant or just that he swore a little. Because if you don't know what Franken was mad about its a little silly to criticize him for being mad
Posted by: bigdumbanimal at November 28, 2003 11:31 PMi dont care what he was 'mad' about...calling someone a "fucking shame" is just idiotic. the guy is a moron, and he proves it on a regular basis.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at November 28, 2003 11:44 PMCalling someone a "fucking shame" = idiotic.
Calling some a "moron" = ?
The difference is what? A "strong" word? In every other sense the two are synonomous.
O'Reilly uses the claim of growing up in a working class neighborhood to ingratiate himself with the common man, THAT's his reasoning. Duh. Proving that he lies, and then continues to deny it, goes to proving he will stop at nothing, including and especially the truth, to make himself look good.
My favorite part of "Lies", the part I wish more right-wingers would take to heart, is the likening of liberal's love for their country to a grown-up relationship: that problems can be acknowledged, and the grown-ups will work to overcome them.
The blind, undocumented defense of O'Reilly in the face of incontrovertible, documented proof is the love of a 4 year old for their mommy: anything their mommy says is right and anyone who disagrees with them is bad.
Posted by: Nezlon at December 3, 2003 01:04 PMumm how did oreilly lie? and continue to lie? he made a mistake and corrected himself numerous times...thats hardly a lie and continuing to lie. and he DID grow up in a working class area. thats fact.
blind, undocumented defense of oreilly? thats insane. since its not blind and certainly not undocumented. he has a radio show, a tv show, a syndicated newspaper column- he corrected his mistake, thats that. franken himself admitted he lied to atty general ashscroft and members of the white house staff. but OREILLY is the liar? hilarious!
calling someone who has done NOTHING TO YOU a fucking shame and calling someone who lies, is blindly lead by ideology, and calls people fucking shames, IS a moron. you cannot compare the two. franken deserves the label moron- because thats what he is. there arent even many liberals that support the joke that is al franken!
again...i simply LOVE blind ideology.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at December 3, 2003 01:42 PMWhat has Al Franken done TO YOU? If you're not allowed to critisize someone unless they've involved you, you've just broken your own rule.
Blind ideology is citing ONLY responses from O'Reilly in his defense. The "facts" you want to hang your hat on, the "documentation" you cite, is ALL BILL O'REILLY: his radio show, his TV show, his column. If I don't believe him, where do you suggest I verify his claims?
The issue of growing up more affluent than he claims in Westbury: his MOTHER. (Washington Post)
The source of him quoting, repeatedly "We won two Peabody's": transcripts on the Net and Nexis.
The documentation of his registered Republican status: AN OFFICIAL FORM ON PUBLIC RECORD.
(http://www.wnyc.org/onthemedia/registrationform.html)
My "blind ideology" (nice personal attack there!) is to call a liar a liar, a philosophy I think Bill would stand by in theory. I'm not arguing in favor of Al Franken or liberalism. I don't think the matter of truth is a right or left issue.
Lying is saying something false that you want people to think is the truth.
Franken spoke falsely to be claiming to be compending stories for [chuckle] "Savin' It!"... but thats what a joke is: saying something false for funny effect, to NOT be taken seriously. The chicken didn't REALLY cross the road. No one is REALLY knock-knocking at your door. C'mon: "Savin' It!"?!? If this lie was so scurrilous, so scheming and underhanded, so NOT OBVIOUSLY A JOKE, how come none of his "victims" responded?
Okay, so none of my preceeding arguments have swayed you. As a last straw, please explain to me the following statement made by O'Reilly in response to the Peabody/Polk "mistake."
(O'Reilly Factor, 3/13/01): "Guy says about me, couple of weeks ago, 'O'Reilly said he won a Peabody Award.' Never said it. You can't find a transcript where I said it."
Posted by: Nezlon at December 4, 2003 07:56 PMi never said you had to be involved to criticize someone. you tell me the reason franken called hume a fucking shame...why he called the entire fox news network a fucking shame.
he has a right to say whatever he wants, but the guy is a moron for doing so. when you talk like he does- youre a moron.
i simply said that oreilly CORRECTED himself. he did. many many times...hes made it clear he made a MISTAKE. you call frankens lies a jokes...but oreilly doesnt get that luxury in your mind. it was a mistake- but people like you who support franken, tho you say you dont, refuse to accept reality. plus, you and others must have never made a mistake in your life...and if you ever do- remember, its not a mistake, its a lie...if a mistake is a lie for bill, a mistake must be a lie for you, its only fair.
its hilarious...a mistake- ONE mistake (that im aware of), and you call him a liar...and you go further than that by saying that oreilly himself, overall- hes a liar. hes not, but you can keep thinking he is all you want. im glad i dont make mistakes on a national level- id be labeled a liar for life by idiots like al franken and his supporters.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at December 4, 2003 08:20 PMIf O'Reilly made a mistake, and really owned up to it- responded with a VOLUNTARY and heartfelt "I'm sorry, I've been mispeaking" then why try to backpedal with this quote from HIS SHOW?
(O'Reilly Factor, 3/13/01): "Guy says about me, couple of weeks ago, 'O'Reilly said he won a Peabody Award.' Never said it. You can't find a transcript where I said it."
C'mon, Josh. That quote isn't going to go away just because you ignore it and call me an idiot. Are you telling me that AFTER the original factual "mistake", he committed another factual "mistake" that just happens to cover up the original "mistake"? All that mistaking... doesn't sound like much of a journalist to me.
It's cool that he's your idol: he's successful and a talented showman. But he's got huge flaws, flaws that you seem to admire: specifically, the habit of ignoring something you can't explain, and telling people who's facts disagree with your opinion that they "refuse to accept reality".
I never denied enjoying Franken's sense of humor, but what does that have to do with the argument of whether Bill intentionally deceives or not? Truth is not a left or right issue. I became aware of the issue, researched the facts, and came to the conclusion that O'Reilly is a bullying hypocrite.
I gave you three examples of lies from him, and you ignore two, and claim he's only made one "mistake" to your knowledge. Okay, well the onus is on you to research those other items (I even provided a helpful link!) But you won't.
There's no reason for me to continue to debate someone who isn't responding to my points, because nobody can say anything critical of your Bill.
BTW: The funniest and most telling quote in this whole thread has got to be this one...
"You know what, if I ever falsely accuse a country of legalizing child molestation, on a news broadcast, then I sincerely hope I'm seriously reprimanded. I'm funny that way."
(-:
Posted by: Nezlon at December 5, 2003 11:06 AMive disagreed with bill on a number of issues...so, good try claiming that no one can criticize "my bill" (yes, i own him)
as for your quote...im not sure the context of that quote and what exactly he was saying. i heard him myself correct the mistake on his tv and radio shows...and he explains the situation in his book as well. now, we all know bill is a smart guy, so for him to lie and then correct himself in 3 different places, numerous times would be a little silly...so, i doubt he was claiming he never said that. from what i heard him say, he might have been saying he never said HE won the award...that his old show did. but, as i said, i dont know the context or what he meant exactly by that tiny quote.
but, like i mentioned, i highly doubt bill said that claiming he never said it, then a few days later contradicted himself by saying he did say it...ive never seen him totally contradict himself like that, so its somewhat improbable.
anyhow- why would he LIE about this issue in the first place? he never claimed HE won the award, only that his show did...inside edition won a polk award, which is, itself, a great success for the type of show it is. so, he had no reason to lie, nothing to gain by lying...when he first said the award thing, he was simply defending his old show...now, reason tells us that if he had no reason to lie and nothing to gain by lying, the odds lie with it being a mistake. and, if it was a lie, he probably wouldnt have used 3 separate outlets to explain the situation.
read his new book- or i can check it out again from the library and post the entire chapter.
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at December 5, 2003 11:32 AMoh. as for the other two "lies"...thats sad. this yr i had to see if i was registered dem or republican- and i found out that the state of indiana doesnt even list a party affiliation. i guess if i had been wrong and said independent and it was listed as one of the two major parties, id be a liar too, right? have you looked at your voter registration form lately? how often do you have to update the form? do you have to update it at all? you better have a perfect memory, or youre a "liar" too.
as for where he grew up. again. he simply has no reason to lie about the situation. i saw his biography on a&e, and ive read articles from the leavittown newspaper that talked about o'reillys neighborhood.
youre clearly someone who hates o reilly and hates fox news- im fairly sure youd say yes to both of these...if not, you wouldnt find tiny little things to pick at and claim lies lies lies, when there could be a million different explanations.
on the same subject- this is FAIR's page for oreilly (fairness in accuracy in reporting- this group is a joke)
http://www.fair.org/extra/0306/oreilly-racism.html
discussing some of the "racism" of o'reilly
**wetback IS the term used to describe the mexicans coming over the border. i wouldnt have used the term to describe them, but that doesnt make one a racist.
**the black community DOES often have a blame whitey attitude. read the new book called SCAM by rev jesse lee peterson- he says the same thing...and, oh my god, HES BLACK HIMSELF. larry elder (A BLACK MAN TOO) says the same thing. maybe they all say it because its fact and so called leaders like jackson and sharpton prove it?
**speaking of minimun standards for athletes- thats odd, because i dont see anywhere in that quote where he said that he was referring to black students only...and the truth is- many college students in general CANT READ and CANT PASS basic tests. and the problem IS worse in the black community in regards to education. these are facts. tho, again, he never said he was talking about blacks, but these kids, in general.
**you CANNOT bring western reasoning into some of the culture in africa. thats yet another fact...a fact that millions im sure would agree with. but FAIR claims this is a "racial slur?" come on!!
**drugs and family problems are epidemic in the black community- another fact. the stats of single mother families in blacks in the US is staggering. i dont have any offhand, but i have posted them before. again, stats based on facts, NOT "racial slurs."
**al sharpton and david duke ARE doing the same thing. sharpton is king racist along with jesse jackson. everything that happens in the black community is to be blamed on whites...and dukes idea is that all bad is to be blamed on blacks. i see nothing at all racist about stating those facts.
**the quote from stuff magazine. come on...its stuff magazine for gods sake. he was trying to be funny...failed, in my opinion, but calling that racist is doing what sharpton does. next, FAIR will be organizing a riot against the "interlopers" and attacking the white devils...and maybe accusing some prosecutors of raping black girls like sharpton has.
this goes to show you that many on the left are out to attack oreilly and label mistakes "lies"- label facts "racist slurs", and in general call him a bad guy who is full of crap. you can say all of that stuff till your blue in the face- it wont make it true.
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at December 5, 2003 11:59 AMWow, if I didn't know better I would think Josh is some kind of FOX News "bot" sent to repeat the same thing over and over regardless of what is said, and how much proof is given..
You will probably deny this and call me "clearly insane", but they just tore you a new one there Joshy boy...
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at December 8, 2003 10:39 AMyes they "tore me a new one" and im a bot for fox news because bill made a mistake and hes not perfect, yet because of that hes called a liar. a mistake a lie...big difference. but youre right, they sure tore me a new one.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at December 8, 2003 11:20 AM[[yes they "tore me a new one" and im a bot for fox news because bill made a mistake and hes not perfect, yet because of that hes called a liar.]]
-If I make a "mistake", I will be the first to admit it. I will not use my show to deny I ever made that "mistake" only to "admit" to it later when MORE people ask questions about it...
He lied. Had he said he made a mistake in the first place, then sure, good for him...but he had to "LIE" and say he "NEVER" said it....(another lie)....only to "CORRECT" himself when MORE AND MORE PEOPLE bring it up....
That in my books, and apparently many others, constitutes a liar...
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at December 8, 2003 12:04 PMyoure hardly one to talk. i doubt youve watched bills show but a handful of times if at all. i watch bill every night and i listen to his radio show all the time...the fact is- he didnt deny he made the mistake. again, he also mentions the same issue in "whos looking out for you" and with the 'debate'with franken on cspan's book tv. he never denied saying it...he denied that he said HE won the award. he was defending his old program INSIDE EDITION, saying the show won the award AFTER HE LEFT.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at December 8, 2003 12:13 PM[[youre hardly one to talk. i doubt youve watched bills show but a handful of times if at all. i watch bill every night and i listen to his radio show all the time...]]
-I fail to see how "watching him all the time" would suddenly NOT make him say hat he did...
[[- he didnt deny he made the mistake.]]
-He sure did...He said, and I quote,
"Guy says about me a couple week's ago, guy says O'Reilly said he won a peabody award... never said it. You can't find a transcript
where I said it. There's no one on earth you could bring in, that would say I said it."
-Then weeks later when more and more people start bring heat on him for it, he admits it.
Had noone ever mentioned it again, he would have been happy with his second lie thinking noone knew the truth...
[[he never denied saying it...he denied that he said HE won the award.]]
-Actually he did both....please read the oficial Bill quote above...
So are you saying that he didn't really say that? Are TV networks, news sources and others wrong? If so..PROVE IT! (for once in your sad life..)
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at December 8, 2003 12:45 PMmy sad life? yeah. your ignorance is just old. im tired of coming to the site and seeing some idiot call me a racist, then deny calling me a racist...and talk to me the way you do. its tiresome. youve made it clear you cant debate serious issues- you can hardly even spell "serious issues" (yeah yeah, we know...you type in the dark with a black keyboard...uh huh).
so, go on with your life supporting the rights of guys who attack police and supporting the plight of the poor palestinians and their right to kill innocent people, and doing all you can to defend terrorism...i wont be taking part in it.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at December 8, 2003 01:35 PMOh please. More right-wing morons thinking lefties "support terrorism". When will right-wing fanatical morons learn that Democrats and Leftys love their country as much as any American, and just have a different view on some issues?
Oh, and Bill may or may not of lied about his stupid award, but Bill O'Reilly is the biggest douche in journalism. He spins the most out of anyone on TV, and anyone who can't notice is a complete moron.
Posted by: Corndog at December 11, 2003 10:58 AMA lot of stupid stuff above. But this one I just can't let go: "why not attack the top guy in news?" Bill O'Reilly the top guy in news? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Posted by: jj at January 5, 2004 09:56 PMAnyone who believed Franken is a chump.
http://www.lyingliar.com
Posted by: Al Franken at January 18, 2004 02:45 AMLies are only a problem when you believe them.
Posted by: O'Keefe Catherine at January 20, 2004 07:07 PMha
Posted by: AL FRANKEN at March 31, 2004 03:05 AMThe Factor is the top prime time news show so i guess you can rightly call Bill on of the top names in news. And after I saw the Bill growing up in Westbury comment, I scrolled to the bottom so if this has already been corrected forgive me. Bill grew up in Levittown. He showed the deed to his house on the Factor and a .pdf copy is available a www.billoreily.com if you need to see it yourself. Let's be realistic. O'reilly made a mistake talking about the Peabody award. I doubt any of us can determine if his true intentions were to decieve. I'm not that clairvoyant...perhaps I lack a skill possessed by one of you. And Franken flatout lied to the Attorney General of the USA. He also lied about where O'Reilly grew up. Did he himself lie or was he just too trusting of his 14 researchers? Again, I don't pretend to know this. But it AMAZES me how people can harp on one guy for alledgely doing something that another guy DID ON PURPOSE. Wipe your eyes, you left and right boys. People from both sides screw up...A LOT. Bill Clinton was terrible and so was Strom Thurmond. Independent thinking and evaluating people based on facts, rather than through eyes tainted with partisan ideology, will make you a far better judge in these debates.
Posted by: Wake up at May 12, 2004 02:21 AMOkay, one more time.
Truth: not a left or right issue. Taking issue with liars, not a partisan undertaking.
The issue at the core of this: O'Reilly's LIE was not the "mistake" of thinking he had won a Peabody. It was his quote that "I never said it." (Don't make me link it AGAIN. If you're like Josh and can't scroll up the page I wash my hands of you.) Only after taking flak because someone called him out on it did he attempt any sort of apology.
It's funny how Bill can make a MISTAKE, but Al's not allowed to make a JOKE.
Posted by: Nezlon at May 18, 2004 07:24 AM"Guy says about me, couple weeks ago, O’Reilly said he won a Peabody Award. Never said it. You can’t find a transcript where I said it." I assume this is the quote you're referring to. Well, let's analyze. Did O'Reilly ever say that HE HIMSELF had won a Peabody Award? No, he did not. And the guy he is referring to is Robert Reno, who had written an article about O'Reilly a short time before the show with this quote aired, just in case anyone was under the misconception that Al Franken wrote that. After this, at the CSPAN book expo, the following exchange took place:
Franken: That Polk award was won a year after Bill left the show.
O'Reilly: It was a discussion about the program. I said nothing...that I won anything. It was about the program.
Franken: Then why did you use the pronoun we?
Ok, that last line is stupid. People always use we to describe something they are a part of even if they are not the direct cause(in this case, O'Reilly in Inside Edition). I go to the Univ of North Carolina. If I'm talking sports teams, I say "We", even though I'm not on any team. "We" won the 93 championship, "We're" gonna win the NC next year(sorry, couldn't resist throwing that in;)). I dont think that using the pronoun we indicates any kind of lie on O'Reilly's part. The quote you're basing your argument on IS true because nowhere does Bill say that HE PERSONALLY won a Peabody. In your quote, he is defending himself against that charge by Robert Reno in Newsday. Did he intentionaly use the word "we" to try and trick people into thinking that he won it, without really lying? Maybe he did...I have no idea...it's certainly possible. But as for using that quote as your end all argument...it just doesnt hold up. And how about when Franken claimed O'Reilly didn't live in Levittown? I'm not saying Al lied...he very well may have gotten flase info from one of his researchers that led him to that conclusion. I dont feel comfortable labeling a man I've never met a liar without knowing all the facts about what caused him to "misspeak".
Posted by: Wake up at May 18, 2004 12:35 PMat least someone has some sense and realizes that the o'reilly was saying that there was a claim that HE himself on the award...he corrected it, since he clearly said that the award was won by the show AFTER he had left. he was simply telling the guy that he never said HE won the award.
im fairly sure that those here who refuse to admit the clear truth of the matter wont admit that theyve ever used the word "we" and meant an entity outside of themselves.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at May 18, 2004 02:40 PMyou all have too much time on your hands!!!!!!!
Posted by: shelia at May 23, 2004 02:11 AMShe's absolutely STUNNING! What a beautiful women!
Posted by: JW at May 27, 2004 12:36 PMplease send bumper sticker about france to:
henry rathell
8140 elizabeth rd
pasadena, md 21122
Ramona Robinson on channel 3 is hotter!
Posted by: Lauren at August 5, 2004 10:51 PMnice site i really like it
Posted by: Robert Atwan at September 10, 2004 10:32 AMnice site i really like it
Posted by: Robert Minter at September 10, 2004 10:35 AMO'Reilly better announce he once was a registered Republican. He is a liar. Saying he is a traditionalist is evasion of the truth. Who is he voting for? Come on tell us. When does he do his own research on why Halliburton is war-profiteering?! Why doesn't he talk about the over 45 civilian Halliburton contractors killed in Iraq?! When does he talk about the over 1022 American soldiers killed!? When does he talk about the fact that the Neocons pushed this war and now the world is more unsafe than ever before?! When does he talk about the terrorist haven Bush and his Neocons have created in Iraq?! When does O'Reilly talk about Mary Cheney not taking stage with her lesbian lover during the Republican convention?! When does O'Reilly talk about the war crime committed in In Iraq?! My Lai massacre needs to be mentioned too when talking about Vietnam. Come clean O'Reilly?!
Posted by: John at September 15, 2004 08:33 PMRead the book, try for just one half of a second to clearly and definitively think for yourself for a change. Yes, Franken's book is entertainment, and left leaning, but consider this:
Calling some one a liar directly and being proven wrong is grounds for a rather easy lawsuit victory. No such lawsuit has surfaced and Franken's facts are dead on.
well, we know frankens "facts" are off...i just listed a number of distortions and lies he told on his radio show two days in a row (the only two days i listened)...not to mention we know that oreilly didnt lie, and hes proven as much time and time again by airing the segments from his show. AND, we know bill did grow up in leavittown, considering the fact that his deed to the house he grew up in has that town listed, and franken claimed oreilly lied about this as well- bill proved him wrong yet again.
you cant say that franken deals in facts with a straight face.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at September 18, 2004 07:59 PM