Thursday, January 13, 2005

Why most of us hate Bill O'Reilly.

Confused about why most of us left-wingers despite Bill O'Falafel? Well, there's
this. And more of that here. And let's not forget this. Depicted in fine video form here. And, of course, who can forget Bill's moral values on display here? And a tidy little roundup of the oozing putrescence that is Bill O'Reilly here.

(Cue outraged right-wing bloviators sputtering, "Hey, I only asked for one example!")


CC said...

From CC:

You know, Jay, it's hard to tell whether you're really this fucking stupid, or whether you're a clever liberal troll who's just impersonating a right-wing nutbar to make them all look like imbeciles.

If by "Bill" you mean Bill Clinton and his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky, the keyword there is "consensual". From the root "consent". Look it up in a dictionary. Then try to figure out how that differs from Bill O'Falafel's unwanted advances and harassment. See the difference? No, I didn't think so.

And as for "opinions", well, that's special. Feel free to enlighten us on how the videotape record of Bill acting like a smug, arrogant, preening, condescencing asshole is just "opinion". Go ahead. I can't wait to hear this.

P.S. Still waiting for you to correct the lies on your site. Should I hold my breath?

CC said...

From CC:

By the way, for those of you are still struggling with the distinction between consensual relations and unwanted harassment, read this piece in which right-wing hack and mouthpiece Chris Matthews does everything he can to refuse to understand the difference when it comes to serial gropinator Arnold Schwarzenegger.

P.S. You see how this works, Jay? When I want to make a point, I actually provide supporting evidence. What a concept, no?

Anonymous said...

CC, I'm a liberal, or was. After reading the responses on this site that you made, I've changed a bit. You just cloud the facts, and act immature. jay acually has a point, you just tried to change the subject.

CC said...

From CC:

Dear regular readers:

I'm not quite sure where to go with this. On the one hand, Mr. Gatsby has morphed into, quite simply, a minor pain in the ass. Nothing serious -- maybe like one of those smallish dogs that insists on humping your leg when you're standing around in a social gathering, just exchanging polite conversation and, all the while, there's this annoying distraction that you'd really like to get rid of but you don't want to make a big scene of it. Kind of like that.

On the other hand, he does have some educational value since he is an almost eerily perfect example of right-wing intellectual bankruptcy. And how so, you ask?

Well, note his last response, in which he totally ignores the rhetorical thrashing I laid on him regarding his idiotic comparison of Bill O'Reilly and Bill Clinton. One would think that even a dimwit conservative could appreciate the difference between consensual and non-consensual sex, especially when I go to the trouble of actually supplying web links. (Notice, of course, that this isn't just my "opinion", as Mr. Gatsby likes to dismiss it. I provide proof; Mr. Gatsby makes shit up out of thin air and lies on his blog. In fact, as I type this, Mr. Gatsby's blog is still lying about the financing of the upcoming Bush inauguration, despite the fact that I've pointed it out to him twice. Naughty, naughty.)

Notice also how Mr. Gatsby, when someone eviscerates some of his argument, refuses to acknowledge it and simply whines, "Oh, yeah? Well, what about that other thing I wrote?" And if you refute that, well, there's always another bit of nonsense coming right behind it. Debating with Mr. Gatsby is like trying to nail Jello to a wall. Every time you zero in on his latest pronouncement, there's a sudden scraping sound of goalposts being moved. He apparently thinks this is clever. Children normally do.

And, finally, regarding Mr. Gatsby's story about Bill O'Reilly's sexual harassment victim Andrea Mackris and the claims Gatsby makes about her at some unidentified press conference, I didn't respond to that because it was so thoroughly implausible that I didn't feel I had to waste the time. I mean, really -- is it even remotely believable that any decent lawyer would let his client make such damaging statements in front of members of the press? Defense attorney rule number one: make sure your client keeps their mouth shut.

But, let's give Mr. Gatsby the benefit of the doubt, shall we? I want him to provide a single web link to a story describing what he wrote about. Just one link, that's all. And if he can support his story, I'll be the first one to apologize. But let's just wait for the link, shall we?

Oh, by the way, Jay, Mackris never dropped the charges as you wrote. That's just one more lie. You can read about the settlement here, which is off of Faux News' own website, so you can't even accuse me of pilfering liberal sources, can you?

So, any bets on when Jay will 1) remove the lies from his blog, or 2) provide some proof for his O'Reilly claim? Shall we start a pool?

Anonymous said...

jay: grpw up, you sound like the skinny frightened little 6 yr old, kicking sand on the playground bully. it's strange that cc even responds to your immature responses.
cc: you are taking this way too personally (the gatsby gadfly), he is not worth the time or trouble. but if you insist on going there then stay on track. keep away from personal attacks which bring you right down to his level. you are brilliant, you hit the nail. using his ridiculous replies only strengthens your position. The personal attacks however steal your credibility. signed- one of your 11 loyal readers. one has to wonder what you are like in your personal life, when you can get swept away by the stupidity of a 17 year old geek with zero tolerance or wisdom or perspective. get a grip. i am counting on you!

Anonymous said...


CC said...

From CC:

To my loyal and long-suffering readers: yes, this has gone on far too long and if you want to know how I'm going to bring it to a merciful conclusion right now, keep reading.

In one sense, it's been a useful exercise since "debating" with Jay (and I use that word only in the loosest possible sense) should have been educational for some of you in that you got to see the standard modus operandi of the right wing -- make stuff up and, when you're called on it, deny ever having said it, feign shock and innocence and move quickly on to more lies. So, at the very least, you can't say you've never seen that approach in action. (To see this done at a much more professional level, well, there's always Bill O'Falafel. Or Ann Coulter.)

Quickly, let's summarize where we are right now:

1) Jay wonders how, if he never posted lies regarding O'Reilly on his blog, how can he possibly remove them? As he well knows, the lies I was referring to were about the financing of the Bush inauguration, as anyone with a 3rd-grade reading ability understands. Instead, Jay plays dumb, pretending that he doesn't know what I'm referring to so he can play the victim.

2) As everyone here can read, Jay makes the claim that Andrea Mackris defended her lawsuit by saying to a reporter, "Hey, what have I got to lose?", then got hustled out of earshot by her attorney. I challenged him to provide some proof of that. Naturally, he ignored the challenge and changed the subject. More on this shortly.

3) Jay also claims that Andrea Mackris dropped the charges against O'Reilly. I'd also like Jay to provide some proof of that, since every account I've read of the settlement suggests strongly that Mackris was given a sizable cash settlement. As one example, read the piece here, which quotes O'Reilly himself as saying, "All litigation has ceased in that case that has made me the object of media scorn from coast to coast." Those are not the words of someone who's just been cleared -- those are the very careful words of someone who doesn't want to talk about what just went down (pun fully intended). But we'll come back to this shortly as well.

So, where to from here? Simple. There are two outstanding challenges from this blog to Jay in terms of proving claims that he's made:

1) I want Jay to prove his claim about Mackris and his "What have I got to lose?" story, and I want him to prove that it happened just the way he described it.

2) I want Jay to prove his claim that all charges from both sides in the O'Reilly/Mackris were dropped. That's certainly what he seems to be claiming, while I claim that the case went away after O'Reilly coughed up a decent cash settlement.

And until he comes up with supporting evidence of one or the other of the above claims, I am simply going to delete every comment he leaves on this blog from now on.

As justification for that, let me tell you about one of my favorite movies, "My Cousin Vinny." For those of you who've seen it, there is a screamingly-funny scene in which the judge (played by Fred Gwynne) casually asks Joe Pesci's character whether his clients plead guilty or not guilty.

Rather than answer that, Pesci launches into a defense of his clients. Gwynne cuts him off and tells him he just wants a plea, that's all. Guilty or not guilty? Pesci continues to wax eloquent on the unfairness of the charges until Gwynne finally reins him in and makes it clear that the next thing out of his mouth had better be only the words "Guilty" or "Not guilty". Nothing else. Absolutely nothing else.

And that's how it's going to be with Jay. I don't want to hear any more lies, evasion or obfuscation out of him. The only thing I want to hear from him is proof of those two claims. That's it. Nothing more. And if he posts anything else, I'm going to delete it.

Naturally, Jay will scream "censorship" or something like that, despite the fact that he has his own blog. Fine. Like I give a shit. Jay's made enough bogus claims here that it's time for him to either put up or shut up.

So, Jay, let's have the proof for your two claims. Anything that doesn't constitute direct, explicit evidence for those two claims as you described them will be deleted in short order. Let's see if you can really play with the big boys, shall we?

CC said...

From CC:

I also wanted to address one more of Jay's points, in which he seems to imagine I'd have any interest whatsoever in debating him. He is, quite simply, deluded beyond belief.

I've been in some satisfyingly intellectually-challenging exchanges in my time and, trust me, this hasn't been one of them. It really has been one of those "annoying dog humping your leg" experiences that I'd rather not repeat since, to put it mildly, I've gotten nothing out of it.

Now, this may sound like a personal attack but, once upon a time, a friend explained something to me that I've never forgotten. He said:

"There are two kinds of dumb in this world. First, there's dumb people who at least know that they're dumb, and that's fine."

"But then there's people who are so dumb, they have no idea how dumb they really are. And those are the really scary ones."

And he was right. Those are the scary ones -- the ones who are so far in over their heads they have no clue. "Too dumb to know how dumb they are." I've never forgotten that description.

So, no, I have no interest in debating the annoying, humping little dog. And the previous restrictions still hold -- anything from Jay that doesn't constitute direct and explicit evidence of the claims he made here will be summarily deleted.

Time to move on. I got me some Intelligent Designers to lay a beatdown on.

Jay McHue said...

Question: why aren't you holding yourself to the same standards to which you are holding Jay?