DOWNLOADS: (140)

PLAYS: (1513)

Embed

The director of issues analysis of the fundamentalist anti-LGBT American Family Association (AFA) on Wednesday refused to answer a "simple yes or no question" about whether he had ever had a "gay impulse."

Liberal radio host Alan Colmes pointed out that AFA's Bryan Fischer could set an example for gay men and lesbians by explaining when he had chosen to be straight.

"Have you ever had a gay impulse?" Colmes asked.

"Alan, I am not going to talk about that," Fischer laughed. "Alan, I'm not going to go there! Give it a rest!"

"It's a simple yes or no question," Colmes observed.

"We're not going to talk about that," Fischer insisted.

"Because maybe if you've been able to overcome your gay impulses and you've been successful in doing it, you could be a model for other people you'd like to see act the same way," Colmes pressed.

"The focus here, Alan, is that everybody experiences sexual impulses that if they acted on those impulses, it would destroy them," the anti-LGBT crusader declared.

"Well, can you give me an example from your own life? What would be some of yours?" the liberal host wondered.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (118)

PLAYS: (931)

Embed

Fox's Bill O'Reilly opened up his show this Tuesday evening by using the death of former Mouseketeer Annette Funicello to opine over whether America was somehow "a better country" back in those days when, as Media Matters noted, white America was "kind of unified" and if that "made it easier for society to function."

I'm fairly sure that it did make it "easier for society to function" if you were a white male, like Bill-O. If you were a woman, or a minority... well... maybe not so much.

O'Reilly was also opining during the segment for the days back when America was "more wholesome." Pardon me if I have a little bit of trouble hearing from someone who is apparently in the middle of a divorce right now and can't control his temper because of it on that topic.

I don't want to hear about the "need to be more wholesome" from someone who had to settle a sexual harrassment suit with one of their former employees.

I don't want to hear about the "need to be more wholesome" from someone who was accused of harassing his ex-wife's boyfriend.

I don't want to hear about the "need to be more wholesome" from someone who is capable of visiting Sylvia's restaurant with the Rev. Al and making the ridiculous statement he did about the patrons and their so-called m-f**king iced tea.

Sadly, we're not likely to see O'Reilly off the air any time soon, along with his fellow Nixon-loving cheerleader here, Monica Crowley who was ready to take up his cause and argue with Alan Colmes. It's sad that the two of them here just literally proved what many of us have known all along about Fox and that is, they'd be more than happy to take most of the country back to the '50's socially and rolling back civil rights. Just don't bring back those tax rates. That would be treasonous!

h/t Media Matters

DOWNLOADS: (141)

PLAYS: (961)

Embed

It looks like Bill O'Reilly still isn't finished spreading the same lies he was telling when he had his meltdown on air with Alan Colmes last week, because he decided to devote his Talking Points Memo and the opening segment of his show this Monday to defending and repeating those same lies -- and as Media Matters noted, despite getting his facts wrong again, O'Reilly claimed his "righteous anger" elevated the conversation about the debt.

The only thing we see Bill-O "elevating" in this segment is his ego. We've already been through the litany of B.S. O'Reilly was shoveling in the previous post here, so I'm not going to rehash that, but my fellow contributor here at C&L, Ellen at NewsHounds took the time to break down the segment above and I'll share just a bit of that here: O’Reilly Justifes His Meltdown With Alan Colmes: I’m Looking Out For You:

You don’t need to be a psychologist or a body expert to figure out that Bill O’Reilly’s justifications tonight for his bullying attack on Alan Colmes last week are a lot of hooey. In fact, there was so much hooey, I’m not sure I can catch it all in one post. But for starters, there was the hooey that O’Reilly likened Colmes’ “lie” about federal spending cuts to the danger posed by Al Qaeda (which included the hooey that Colmes had his facts wrong in the first place), plus the hooey that O’Reilly attacked Colmes out of a public-spirited desire to draw attention to this big danger, plus O’Reilly’s "admission" that he shouldn’t have called Colmes a liar – even though he immediately afterward described Colmes as lying. And my favorite hooey: O’Reilly said he’s not in his job for money or fame, but to look out for us.

Sure he is. How could anyone ever get the idea that O'Reilly was just all about the money or fame? Go read the rest for more of Bill-O's hackery and the back and forth during the panel segment, and as she noted, Mary Katharine Ham and Juan Williams did nothing but suck up to O'Reilly and reassure his poor bruised ego that he's really just a nice guy, no matter how badly he treated Colmes the previous week. I don't know about anyone else, but watching those two during this segment reminded me of a couple of battered wives telling their abusive husband that they still love him.

DOWNLOADS: (132)

PLAYS: (772)

Embed

After Bill O'Reilly's outburst at his fellow Fox contributor Alan Colmes this week, Lawrence O'Donnell took his viewers on a little trip down memory lane with Bill-O and his anger management problems.

DOWNLOADS: (398)

PLAYS: (4513)

Embed

I'm not sure how much of this is just political theater. Has Bill O'Reilly decided it's good television to act like a raving maniac in the hope of increasing his viewership over at Fox? Or is Bill-O just not unable to keep his temper in check because he's mad that he might have to fork out some more money in taxes? O'Reilly lost it with Alan Colmes, one of his regulars, last night. It was bad enough that even the generally mild-mannered Colmes, who put up with years of abuse as Hannity's sidekick on the same network, expressed his disgust at O'Reilly's over-the-top attack.

My fellow contributor here at C&L, Ellen has more here: O’Reilly Loses It Big Time With Alan Colmes:

Bill O’Reilly had a major meltdown tonight with Alan Colmes. It has to be seen to be believed but let’s just say that O’Reilly was screaming at Colmes that he’s a liar and Colmes respectfully but firmly shot back, “Don’t you call me a liar.” Later, O’Reilly seethed, “It’s jack what you’re saying. There’s another word for it but it’s an obscenity.” In a subsequent segment, John Stossel told O’Reilly he had been out of line and “obnoxious.”

O’Reilly started out with a vicious chip on his shoulder in his Talking Points commentary immediately preceding the discussion. Then he said:

It’s almost like Mr. Obama is sabotaging the country so he can reshape it. There comes a point where every nation in history gets what it deserves. Rome, Japan, Germany and Russia all were destroyed by venal leaders exploiting an apathetic population. I pray that doesn’t happen to us but we the people need to wise up fast.

Colmes came on and, as usual, did an excellent job holding up his end. And O’Reilly apologized to Colmes at the end. But not before he came off looking one big bloviating, bullying blowhard. It was a worse outburst than O’Reilly’s famous “Just shut up!” temper tantrum made famous in Outfoxed. And he kept simmering with rage afterward. Read on...

And as she noted, Media Matters took on Bill-O on as well: Confronted With Facts, O'Reilly Screams "Bullshit":

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (121)

PLAYS: (1598)

Embed

Regardless of taunts like those from right wingers like Brad Blakeman on Fox this Wednesday morning, Democrats dismissed their claims that the decision to move President Obama's speech indoors was because he could not fill the stadium.

Dems Scoff At GOP Taunts That Obama Couldn’t Fill Stadium:

Senior Democratic officials here scoffed Wednesday morning at Republican criticisms of the decision to move President Obama’s DNC address indoors on Thursday, shutting out tens of thousands of community members to the event.

Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, suggested the decision was a move to save face in case the event didn’t pack the house. “After promising to speak at Bank of America stadium rain or shine, Team Obama is moving inside,” he tweeted after the announcement. “Troubles filling the seats?”

“[Republicans] are gonna turn this into a political decision. It was a public safety decision,” a senior campaign official told reporters at a briefing Wednesday morning, following the announcement that President Obama will no longer speak outdoors at Bank of America Stadium because of concerns over “extreme weather.”

More than 65,000 community members had activated community credentials to attend the event, and another 19,000 people were on a waiting list for the event. Democratic officials said they expected the lion’s share of those with credentials to attend, because they had to go through a multi-step process that involved visiting a campaign office, and later activating a code using a computer or mobile device, to show that they were serious about attending. Read on...

DOWNLOADS: (152)

PLAYS: (1759)

Embed

Poor old Bill-O was terribly upset that the Democrats used Teddy Kennedy to "club Mitt Romney over the head" with the tribute video they played of him at their convention this Tuesday night. We all know Republicans would never do a thing like that, unless of course it involves St. Ronnie. Then as always, IOKIYAR.

DOWNLOADS: (45)

PLAYS: (252)

Embed

From this Saturday's Fox News Watch, regular guest and columnist Cal Thomas comes up with this doozy when his fellow panel member Alan Colmes points out the fact that the Republicans' presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his veep lie like rugs and haven't been called out for those lies by the media. Thomas' response... well the Democrats aren't asked enough why they don't have more of their politicians running on the Republican platform. I kid you not.

It's bad enough that he just completely ignores Colmes' points about the lying and how unrealistic and harmful his campaign rhetoric has been, but then he's got to stretch and claim that the media pointing out the fact that the Republican party is pretty much all white and not all that inclusive of minorities or concerned about issues that affect women, is the same as the media not asking Democrats why they don't have any "pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, smaller government, lower taxes people in your party." Never mind the fact that it's not true that there aren't any Democrats who agree with some or all of the issues Thomas was addressing here. As Colmes pointed out, it's a completely ridiculous comparison.

SCOTT: Well, should these presidential candidates be pressed to give us more?

COLMES: Of course they should.

SCOTT: We don't know what President Obama wants to do in the next four years.

COLMES: Of course we do. We've had him for four years. He's been much more opaque than Mitt Romney and Mitt Romney the minute you ask him in an interview, nobody presses him on how you gonna'... he wants to cut everything down to twenty percent of the G.D.P., he wants to cut taxes for the rich. He wants to raise military spending. And he wants, he said last night... that he was going to not increase taxes on the middle class. That is physically impossible. How's he going to do all that and solve the budget deficit problem? Nobody has pressed him on this and the media has not done its job nor have they held these people accountable for their lies, their constant lies about Barack Obama, the constant lies about what their plan is. They have not been held accountable.

THOMAS: You sound offended.

COLMES: Well, I am offended.

SCOTT: Well, are the media going to do the same thing at the Democratic convention?

THOMAS: Oh, no, no no. Here's what the media are going to do at the Democratic convention. They're not going to apply the same standards to Democrats as they do to Republicans. If they did, this is what it would look like. The media would be asking the Democratic leaders, why don't you have any pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, smaller government, lower taxes people in your party? It is all monochromatic, ideologically among Democrats. But when it's Republicans, they always say we need to hear more from groups, blacks, African Americans, women. So when the Republicans get those people up on the stage, Susana Martinez, Marco Rubio and others, well obviously they're just tokens. They don't really represent the party. So it's a complete double standard and you're never going to hear the same questions asked of Democrats as you do of Republicans.

COLMES: You're talking about race and ethnicity versus ideology. They're two very different things.

THOMAS: Well, not to the media they're not. Because if you're a black conservative, then you've gone off the, to mix a metaphor, the reservation...

COLMES: And I wonder why black conservatives aren't too happy about the Republican party. I wonder why.

I'd like someone to ask Thomas what's "pro-life" about starting wars, why after busting the bank under Bush that anyone should really believe Republicans are for "small government," and why the only ones Republicans want to raise taxes on are the working class. I don't expect we'll see that happen any time soon. Republicans are "pro-life" until you're born. Then you're on your own. And all the happy talk or minority speakers at their convention and propping up a few of their leaders which is supposed to show they care about diversity isn't going to change the fact that their policies are cruel and benefit the rich. If we had more "fair" coverage Cal, Republicans would be asked about those issues more often, rather than all this stupid horse race coverage we're treated to day in and day out.

DOWNLOADS: (191)

PLAYS: (1146)

Embed

Bill O'Reilly did his best to carry on the Fox mantra of demonizing the poor and the most vulnerable among us in his Talking Points Memo this Tuesday night by portraying anyone who depends on government programs as a bunch of weak, lazy moochers who don't want to work and who are happy to sit around waiting for their next welfare check in yet another edition of Bill O'Reilly really doesn't want to see his tax rate go up.

There are so many things wrong with this segment, it's hard to know where to begin, but Media Matters, who flagged this segment did a nice job here on how anti-poverty programs have actually kept millions out of poverty, countering O'Reilly's nonsense.

O'Reilly brought in Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley for a follow up to his opening segment and Colmes made some good points countering O'Reilly on taxation, who these programs are helping, the number of children and elderly involved and what not, but it wasn't enough to keep Crowley from defending O'Reilly's talking points and pretending that Democrats just want to keep everyone poor so those needing government assistance will vote for them.

What Crowley ignores is that if we had minimum wage keeping up with what anyone needs to earn as a living wage and CEO's not making hundreds of times more than their lowest paid workers, we would not need to be supplementing these people's incomes through the government, because their employers would be doing that instead.

People like Bill O'Reilly and Monica Crowley are much more concerned with trying to demonize the poor as they did here than ever take a look at why so many who are working for a living can barely afford to get by and are looking to the government for assistance.

Someone needs to ask both of these clowns why the taxpayers should be subsidizing Walmart and their ilk because they don't want to pay their employees a living wage or cover their insurance costs and why that corporate welfare on the backs of the taxpayers is acceptable in the United States. Apparently that's alright as long as you're demonizing the people employed who need government assistance and not the company for raking in billions while being too cheap to pay their employees a living wage or for their health insurance.

I'm sure we'd get crickets in response if either Bill-O or his buddy Crowley ever found anything besides a mic at Fox put in front of their face.

Video of the panel segment following Bill-O's talking points memo below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (380)

PLAYS: (697)

Embed

Bill O'Reilly's been on a hell of a tear this week attacking the Occupy Wall Street movement. On this Monday's show, he was calling them "terrorists" because a protester was giving him a hard time while watching a show on Broadway. Our friends over at News Hounds have more on that and O'Reilly's double standard when it comes to what sort of protesters he likes.

And never mind the hypocrisy of someone like Bill O'Reilly having the nerve to call protesters "terrorists" when he's done his best to inspire a few actual terrorists of his own as Dave Neiwert wrote about here: Bill O'Reilly has Dr. George Tiller's blood on his well-stained hands.

This Tuesday, he followed up as promised and here's how Fox's blog, Fox Nation promoted the piece tonight: The O'Reilly Factor: The Architects of The Occupy Movement:

Bill O’Reilly Asks: Who is Backing the Occupy Protesters and Why Won’t President Obama Repudiate the Movement?

Thousands of protesters and members of the Occupy movement hit the streets of Chicago during the NATO summit. 90 people were arrested and dozens were injured including a police officer who was stabbed. Tonight on The O’Reilly Factor, host Bill O’Reilly looked further into who is really behind the movement, which he notes is now very well organized. He called it a “hardcore, far-left movement designed to cause as much trouble as possible.”

He found that the movement is being run out of Washington, D.C. in offices belonging to the Institute for Policy Studies. The director of the Institute is John Cavanagh, a longtime liberal activist and his nonprofit accepts money from George Soros through the Tides Foundation. O’Reilly also reported that the Service Employees International Union headed by Mary Kay Henry is paying rent for the OWS crew in D.C. at about $4,000 month.

O’Reilly stated, “It is long past time for President Obama to condemn the anarchistic element of the occupiers, which is now dominant. Instead, the president falls back on protecting freedom of speech platitudes. Sure, tell that to the Chicago cop who got stabbed, Mr. President.”

The Institute for Policy Studies' John Cavanagh responded to O'Reilly's attacks on their organization and Occupy Wall Street later that same evening here: The Nonsense Zone:

Continue reading »