October 16, 2004 10:33 AM
Bill's losing it...
Confronted on his pattern of sexual harassment, Bill bitches about Outfoxed, and the "smear merchants" out to get him. From his radio show on Thursday (MP3)
And you can see this in a pattern of behavior where a Hollywood-funded documentaries [sic]; smear books from major publishing houses; elite media picking up this stuff and then running with it in a favorable way. I mean, there's a smear documentary out on FOX. And look -- if you do a search on how many good reviews that thing got? This is the "shut up" one, where they put together a bunch of me saying "shut up". And we did the research on this; I said "shut up" on the air, the last six years, six times.
He keeps repeating the lie that he only said "shut up" six times on the air in the last six years. For the record, there are roughly 200 different times he said the actual words "shut up" on The O'Reilly Factor in the last six years. Do the nexis search: "((shut-up) or (shut w/1 up)) and show(o'reilly)" across all transcripts, all available dates. 251 hits -- the vast majority are O'Reilly actually using the phrase (occasionally Dick Morris, a frequent guest, says it too). Most of those were in the context of "Should he just shut up?" or "I'd shut up about it." There are much fewer times where the context was "You, sir, should shut up." or "Shut UP! Cut his mic." Matt Lauer called him on the lie last week, pointing out he said it 29 times. Quoting O'Reilly again:
Of course, they put all of those in and then they went out, you know, and tried to portray -- that's what they do. But there's big money behind this. Big, big money. And it's not an accident that this extortion attempt came three weeks before the election -- four weeks before the election. It's no accident -- this is not a coincidence.
Big money? Hahaha.. I sure haven't seen any of it. Does he know Robert had to take a loan out to finish "that thing", which incidentally, cost $300K total? Or that everyone who worked on the film took drastically cut salaries?
Bill O'Reilly -- ravings of a paranoiac (10.16.2004)
Next Entry: New York Times endorses John Kerry (10.17.2004)
Previous Entry: Jon Stewart's Crossfire intervention (10.16.2004)
fancourt:
There is a link between Murdoch and Bush that is criminal.
High crimes and misdeameanor stuff..
Know what I mean?
This won't emerge until after the election.
If Bush wins then the news is good:
the tragic and terrible things that are happening right now go so out of control that they become impossible for the spin machines to manipulate and Bush, resonating more and more each day like the Baghdad Bob he is, goes down in flames along with the rest of his nasty ass cartel along with his propaganda machine...
Sad part of that scenario is he kills so many more than he already has....
Of course, it won't be personal until it happens to 'lots' of us...
So there you go.
If Kerry wins the media suddenly will finally start telling the truth and they will blame 'it all' on him.
Sun Oct 17 2004 5:52 AM
Anonymous:
Kerry will probably fall into line with the ambitions of the Oil interests, which we should all expect. That is real politic.
At some point though the links between media and the coup which just took place should emerge thanks to the large number of inside CIA and decent, compassionate career militarists who are 'really' watching over us and who are right now just as weird and pissed off as that weird monster in John Carpenter's remake of "The Thing" was.
God speed to those insiders. Man do we need those kinds of heroes.
On the field and behind the scenes -
Their the only ones who can save our asses.
Sun Oct 17 2004 5:56 AM
Tom from Madison:
The Saudi Royal family will never have the ear of Kerry the way they now have the ear of Bush. The Bin Laden-Bush relationship goes back decades. Kerry has no such hisory to be ashamed of.
Mon Oct 18 2004 9:31 AM
Right Wing Robby:
Shut up.
Mon Oct 18 2004 11:56 AM
What exactly does the election have to do with his troubles? Is he running for office? I would have thought that a self-proclaimed "independent" would be immune from alleged political machinations. Please explain.
Mon Oct 18 2004 12:08 PM
Email:
   
|
  
 |
