Bill O'Reilly is a Pinhead

#1. Who watches" The View"?

#2. Bill O'reilly is and probably always will be a loud mouth jerk that says things for shock purposes.

#3. Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar is on the side of the political pool that demands tolerance, yet they showed they were the most intolerant. It was like a conservative giving a speech at Berkeley, they are going to get booted out of the place.

And thats the way I see it. Good Day

How exactly did they show that they were intolerant. See I think you like to use the word a lot but I don't think you actually know what the word means.

Walking off stage because someone is spouting off about something they are wrong about is not intolerance. It's unprofessional but it isn't intolerant.

I am overjoyed Keda that your starting argument is to actually take a page out of Bill O'Reilly's play book and instead of actually making a point or refuting something you question the audience size of the show. Papa O'Reilly would be so proud of you.

If you believe he said it for shock value and not because that's what he really believes then that's fine.

I've already discussed the first part of the third point but the second part makes absolutely no sense. Care to elaborate?

Intolerant.

1: unable or unwilling to endure.

2:unwilling to grant equality, freedom, or other social rights.

I could be wrong but isn't one of our social rights, freedom of speech.

I didn't quot out of Bill O'Reilly's play book, you will just have to trust me on this, I do not listen to him and never have.

Yes, freedom of speech, and when someone like Bill proves his ignorance its up to us to point it out.

Yes Keda we do have freedom of speech, which is protected from the government. Once more someone shows that they do not fundamentally understand the Bill of Rights. It protects us from the government curtailing our speech.

What happened on the show didn't (even in the simplest terms) have anything to do with O'Reilly's freedom of speech.

To be honest that definition fits O'Reilly perfectly by him being unable or (more likely) unwilling to endure the fact that the entire Muslim religion didn't attack us on 9/11 he was being intolerant of Muslims.

"#1. Who watches" The View"?'

That is straight out of his playbook. When in doubt question the number of people that watch a show.

"I do not listen to him and never have."

This is one of the oddest phenomena I have ever seen. Despite Fox News being the number one watched network, and despite Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck being at the top of watched programming, and Rush Limbaugh being the most listened to radio personality, most if not all of our resident conservatives DENY either having watched or listened to or don't watch or listen to any of it. It is quite interesting. Despite all the non-watching and non-listening they all almost always come to this website and post something that has been said on one of these shows.

eddy, buddy, turn off the caps. Very odd that you would use a name in all lower case letters and then type your posts in all capital letters.

Well it looks like we did get a non-apology apology, but not from Bill O'Reilly. No, it came from Brian Kilmeade for his "all terrorists are Muslims" line:

He is sorry if he "offended or hurt anybody's feelings." What a swell guy.

He also said that he "misspoke". Question; how exactly are you misspeaking when you say, "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims"? Inquiring minds would love to know.

I would assume he was referring to the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks on New York since that was what was the context of the topic. However, he just said "all terrorists are Muslims" instead of "all of the terrorists who attacked the World Trade center were Muslims". If that's what he meant then he misspoke.

The hell you say Machael, The government protects us with the Bill of Rights. Wow! I did not know that. What a concept on there part, what will they think of next.

My bad, I apologize.

I got to go now, the O'Reilly show is about on. I've got to make sure I get that play book down, I don't want to zig when I supposed to be zagging.

I just want to make sure I have this straight Keda. You mistake what the Bill of Rights actually protect (suggesting that O'Reilly's freedom of speech was somehow being blocked by two women on a show that apparently no one watches), yet when I correct you on that mistake your reaction is seen above.

What ever happened to actually taking ownership of your mistakes?

That was supposed to say the constitution protects us with the Bill of Rights from the government. I guess I zigged when I was to Zag. Jokes on me.

McCook, if that was what he actually meant that yes I would agree that he misspoke, but he has never made that clear. Just simply said that he misspoke. Still it's miles ahead of O'Reilly.

*sigh* So much for an apology:

"Folks are fed up with politically correct nonsense. There's no question there is a Muslim problem in the world and if The View ladies will not acknowledge that, that's their problem. Because most Americans well understand the danger coming out of the Muslim world... Right now the countries of Russia, China, the Philippines, many nations in Africa and Thailand are all fighting Muslim insurrections. The Muslim threat to the world is not isolated, it's HUGE!"

My question is; how is distinguishing between a minority of extremists and a majority of moderate Muslims politically correct?

Michael, People, supposedly in the know, have stated that *only* ten percent of Muslims are Terrorists. With one point five Billion Muslims, 10% does sound insignificant, but translated into apples and apples, that equates to one hundred fifty Million Terrorists. I believe that numbers constitutes a rather substantial force, trying to kill all Jews, and Christians, just before converting the remainder of the World to Islam.

You may not have any problem with that type danger, but this old war-horse smells death in the air, ours. Of course, from what I have read, the Islamic Brotherhood (Moderate Muslim organization??) just put out the order for all 'moderate' Muslims to join in the killing of all Jews and Christians. But then, perhaps you haven't seen that news just yet.

You go ahead, and put down those who are concerned, about not accepting the Sharia aspects of government, or being martyred for refusing to convert, but that is, of course, your choice, when it comes.

But I get more windy than intended. I rest my espousal of my First Amendment Right, opinion.

Wow Navy. That was unexpected even from you.

"You may not have any problem with that type danger, but this old war-horse smells death in the air, ours."

That's a great attempt at pigeon-holing me on the topic. It's right up there with your either with us or against us line from 00s. That you are attempting to pigeon-hole me on your belief is equally nice.

"Those in the know". Who would that be? Where do they come up with the 10%? I like how it is perfectly rounded up.

Nevermind, of course, that this sort of rhetoric and actions have always existed. Let's just take last century as an example. Hitler tried to exterminate all the Jews, all homosexuals, all liberals, all Soviets, and anyone that didn't agree with him. Yet that's not even why we fought against him. For most of the war we didn't even know what was going on. Stalin was killing his own people, including people that were loyal to him. Estimates have him killing more of his own people than Hitler could kill. Milosivic killed millions of Muslims in the 80s and 90s.

Am I concerned? Of course, but seeing from your post you think I don't. My point is, most people's points, which you have missed, is that it is NOT the entire religion that has attacked us. It is the extremists. Putting every single one of them in the same category would be very similar to saying that all Christians killed Jews during Hitler's reign. Of course, it isn't true, but who cares about facts anyways?

Ah, Sharia Law. Where exactly in the United States is this actually going on?

On the other side, Bill has about 3 million fewer viewers right now. Wonder how that will affect rankings in the long run.

np,

Really? Isn't that how many viewers he gets every night?

I guess my true issue here is that almostanytime the TEA Party is mentioned and what some of it's members believe, it's supporters, nationally and on this website, came to the defense and decried condemning an entire group of people for the the actions of a minority. Yet these same people had no issue what-so-ever condemning an entire religious group because of the actions of a minority of it's members.

I get the feeling that this hypocrisy is completely lost on some but it is sitting there in black and white.

Again, what does ratings have anything to do with the meat of the issue. Whether he has a lot of people watching him or not does not make him right on every single issue. On this issue I believe him to be morally and factually wrong.

I think you and those other two women on the view need to get a little thicker skin. We were attacked on 9/11. Those who attacked us were Muslim. Hence, "Muslims attacked us on 9/11." He wasn't insinuating that EVERY Muslim attacked us, nor does he believe that ALL Muslims are terrorists. Nobody does. Regardless, he's right. Building a Mosque near ground zero is inappropriate and you have to seriously question the motives of anyone who wants to do so.

As far as saying Christians killed Jews during Hitlers reign. Yes, but how many troops from the Us, Canada, France,UK, Australia that went to fight Hitler and Japan were Christian? I have no idea, but I bet if this many Muslims stood up against the terrorists, or even spoke out against them, there might be a different feeling towards them from a lot of people.

Thats my humble opinion.

No he wasn't insinuating that every Muslim attacked us, he said it.

"Muslims attacked us on 9/11."

That is what he said. He didn't say extremist Muslims attacked us, he said that Muslims attacked us. You can parse the words all you want and bend completely backwards defending him, but the fact of the matter is he said that Muslims attacked us and then Kilmeade backed that up by stating that all terrorists are Muslims.

By the way yes he does believe that, or he wouldn't have said it.

If they meant something else they should have stated that.

Thicker skin? Seriously. This coming from the people that get all in a bother when someone says that the TEA Party is racist, is going to lecture other people about getting thicker skin?

When we were fighting against Hitler we were not fighting against him because of the concentration camps and the extermination of the Jews. We did not even learn of that until the end of the war as we were marching into Germany.

So to equate the Christian troops fighting then against Hitler to moderate Muslims today is factually incorrect.

meh...you're an intolerant hypocrite. If he would have said "Muslim extremist's killed us on 9/11." I'm sure you would have been just as quick to defend those poor Muslim extremists who weren't involved. I don't have to bend over backwards to defend O'Reilly just because you and some other gals take something out of context.

"By the way yes he does believe that, or he wouldn't have said it."

please...go back and watch the video...if he believed that he sure didn't stick to his guns very long after the crybabies stormed off the set.

I don't know who Kilmeade is, but what he said was as stupid as calling the Tea party racist, although I doubt you would be as quick to denounce that stereotype.

And you're also wrong about him not apologizing and you misquoted him as well. I guess actually watching the video and knowing what you are talking about wouldn't really help your cause to spew venom.

The holocaust started in June of 1941 with mass shootings of Jews.Many had fled the country and some to the US. We knew they were being killed, we just didn't know to what extent. Yes! I know we were drawn into the war by the Japanese, and the Jew issue had nothing to do with it.

However with this said, my statement about Muslims standing up, or speaking out against terrorist still stands.

May I suggest that everyone should vacation in Dearborn,Michigan to open ones eyes to the great compromise.

Ah so you bring up Dearborn, the conservative wet dream for Sharia Law. The fact that it isn't true still hasn't stopped anyone from using it as THE example is quite telling.

"If he would have said "Muslim extremist's killed us on 9/11." I'm sure you would have been just as quick to defend those poor Muslim extremists who weren't involved."

You know me so well as to put words in my mouth. I guess it's just a shame that you are absolutely making it up as you go along.

He has never apologized and in fact the next night on his own show re-iterated what he said with no apology.

"I guess actually watching the video and knowing what you are talking about wouldn't really help your cause to spew venom."

I would say the same about you but we already know that you don't let pesky things like fact get in your way of defending poor misunderstood O'Reilly.

I really enjoy how after someone has said "Muslims attacked us on 9/11" the defenders and even the person come back and claim that they were taken out of context. You can't take a direct quote out of context Bison, no matter how much you try.

It's fine though let the fearmongerers continue claiming that an entire religion attacked us and that we are all doomed. It's what they do best.

Okay how about this Keda. We knew what Stalin was doing to his own people, yet we did nothing to help them. Why?

"I'm not demeaning anyone."

and

"If thats you think, Muslim extremists killed us."

and

"If anyone felt I was demeaning all Muslims, then I apologize."

There you go. Direct quotes.

Your gal pals even came back to the stage and one said:

"We're back because then you apologized. You apologized."

Pesky facts.

BTW, To take something out of context: To interpret something in a manner in which it was not intended to be understood, often deliberately.

If I were to say "The mailman was attacked by dogs", are you going to be dense enough to think that I meant every dog in the world attacked the mailman??

"If anyone felt I was demeaning all Muslims, then I apologize."

Yeah, Bison, that is what is called a non-apology apology. He isn't actually apologizing. By throwing in the the line, "if anyone felt" he is saying that he really doesn't think he said anything wrong but he is being forced to apologize anyways.

I don't know Bison, are you going to be dense enough to make a comparison between dogs and an entire religious group?

"I don't think that's required to know what the Muslim problem is in the world," replied O'Reilly. "You don't need to know the tenets of Islam to know the geopolitical situation."

Yeah Bill O'Reilly doesn't need to know anything about the religion to **** every single one of them. Totally sounds like a guy that is only concerned about extremist Muslims. The Muslim problem. How rich.

If you don't see the 4.8 ton elephant in the living room, that is ok with me. They are starting to see it in England, France and Germany.

I'll give you the last word on this subject. I'm sure you will want to rip me a good one anyway. I'm not into insulting some one who disagree's with me, but if you must, go ahead.

Two more pinheads for today: Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee for demanding that NPR lose it's federal funding for firing Juan Williams' and thus violating his free speech.

On both points, actually.

First NPR, like Fox News, doesn't get any direct federal funding. Although, they will probably get credit for NPR losing its funding, I seriously doubt they know that NPR does not get direct funding.

Second, NPR clearly states in its contracts and guidelines that Juan Williams was very aware of that if they were on different shows or networks they were not to make any comments that would give the impression that they had any bias, whether liberal or conservative. There is not violation of freedom of speech in this case.

It's really pretty simple. Every American has the right to say what they want without fear of retribution from the government. That right does not extend to the job. If you say something that looks bad on your company and/or violates your contract you can and probably will be fired.

I remember not too long ago the story of a teacher creating a fire storm when he said some things that were not too kind to Christianity. This blog was on fire with posters (and a blogger) demanding that he be fired. If he doesn't, in your minds, have "freedom of speech" to say what he thinks about Christianity, why should Juan Williams have "freedom of speech" to say what he feels about Muslims.

I put freedom of speech in quotes because quite clearly neither case was a constitutional issue. but it does quite clearly show that some will use the constitution to justify why someone they agree with should not be fired for something they say while someone they don't agree with should be fired for the same thing.

Maybe, here's a better comparison. Since Bill O'Reilly is a Catholic does that mean that all Catholics believe and act as he does?

Or are there distinctions and moderated positions as in the whole of the Muslim faith?

"I remember not too long ago the story of a teacher creating a fire storm when he said some things that were not too kind to Christianity. This blog was on fire with posters (and a blogger) demanding that he be fired."

Was he fired?

@SWN Who/When was that?

He was sued. That was not the point, naturally.

The point was that on this site the same people that felt that Juan Williams should not have been fired for his statement on Muslims felt that James Corbett should have been fired for his views on Christianity.

The other point is the Juan Williams was fired because he specifically violated his contract. Whether it was his views on Muslims or other subjects he was on Fox News expressing his views. His contract, that he signed, specifically expressed that reporters for NPR not express their views.

Mike,

So Juan got fired for being on Fox news as a commentator? I'd be afraid to work for NPR under that contract, to think your employer has total control over your expression even when you aren't on work time is frightening to me.

A difference could be that the teacher was expressing his views in school where he was contracted to be, while Juan was expressing his views where he wasn't contracted to be.

Although I think you are once again stretching too far in trying to make conservatives look bad, for you to say it was on fire with people demanding he be fired, I vaguely remember some discussion about it but I don't recall everyone demanding he be fired, can you tell us who was doing so?

Damu,

I'm not exactly sure, Mike would probably be a better person to ask. As I said towards Mike I kinda remember some talk about it but not in any detail. I really didn't know if he got fired and was just asking for Mike to clear it up. I kinda assumed he didn't get fired, because it is almost impossible for teachers to lose their jobs, unless perhaps they are incompetent and don't achieve tenure. Once tenured they're pretty much in for life.

"So Juan got fired for being on Fox news as a commentator"

Who said that? Are you putting words in peoples mouths again?

No, Juan Williams got fired because he violated his contract. As a reporter for NPR he signed a contract stating that when he went outside of NPR he would not show bias towards any political stripe. He constantly violated his own contract, the last instance being the final straw. Now, you can try to simplify it down to "Juan Williams got fired for being on Fox News", but naturally it's leaving a lot of the facts out of the case. Something you excel at.

"I kinda assumed he didn't get fired, because it is almost impossible for teachers to lose their jobs, unless perhaps they are incompetent and don't achieve tenure. Once tenured they're pretty much in for life."

Care to offer any proof? Seems to me you are "stretching too far" to paint teachers in a bad light. But I know you would never make any generalizations.

It's good to have you back.

Then what about Nina Totenberg? Or Michelle Norris? They have voiced their opinion on many shows outside of the NPR\PBS circles. Are their contracts somehow different? What about Vivian Schiller's comment that Juan should have kept his comment between himself and his shrink. Does NPR think he is nuts?

Two glaring coincidences; (1.) CAIR demanded action, and (2.) George Soros donates 1.8 million dollars to NPR days earlier.

Or maybe this man, of African descent, "strayed of the liberal plantation".

You know what invalidated your entire comment there CPB?

"George Soros donates 1.8 million dollars to NPR days earlier"

If Juan Williams is a liberal than I am a conservative.

Are you even awake?

"Yeah, Bison, that is what is called a non-apology apology. He isn't actually apologizing. By throwing in the the line, "if anyone felt" he is saying that he really doesn't think he said anything wrong but he is being forced to apologize anyways.

I don't know Bison, are you going to be dense enough to make a comparison between dogs and an entire religious group?"

I see how you are. You get to interpret one direct quote to make it fit your arguement, but the other is completely cut and dry?? Like I said, you are a hypocrite.

Yes Mike, I am comparing dogs to Muslims. Just as I am comparing mailmen to America. It's sad that such a simple way of explaining something could go so far over your head. Please tell me you're not a real teacher??

Hey when you are ready to have a serious discussion and one without insults and personal attacks let me know.

Sorry Mike, it's kind of hard too have a serious discussion with anyone when logic escapes them. You are either trying to twist my example because you know you're wrong or you're just not the sharpest knife in the drawer. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former.

Like I said let me know when you want to have a serious discussion without personal attacks.