Bill O'Reilly | Chris Dodd | News

New:
Towleroad Tools:
Towleroad is nominated -- vote every day until Monday
The 2008 Weblog Awards
Thanks for the support!
« Hot off the Presses: Lance Bass Out of Sync | Main | How Gay is Pete Wentz? »

08/03/2007


Senator Chris Dodd and Bill O'Reilly on DailyKos "Hate"

Senator Chris Dodd lets O'Reilly have it.

Americablog has dug up what O'Reilly actually said about San Francisco and al Qaeda:

"And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead."

Sphere: Related Content

Posted 11:25 AM EST by Andy in Bill O'Reilly, Chris Dodd, News | Permalink

Like it?

Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!

... or by Email
RECENT STORIES:

Comments

  1. ...and I hope Rupert Murdoch does for the Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones what he does for cable news.

    Posted by: Rad | Aug 3, 2007 11:32:16 AM


  2. God save us.

    Posted by: Rad | Aug 3, 2007 11:32:45 AM


  3. LOL Bill got served!

    Posted by: Jayden | Aug 3, 2007 11:59:39 AM


  4. SOOO happy someone with a brain went on there, held his cool, and really showed how idiotic O'Reilly is.... man, that was one of the best videos I've seen in a long time!!!

    Posted by: gabriel | Aug 3, 2007 12:29:54 PM


  5. God, what a pig. Just goes to show that the majority of Americans will listen to whomever screams the loudest. Too many of our people are too intellectually stunted and profoundly selfish to be able to make our country into the republic that it was meant to be.

    Every time I see Bill O'Reilly and his ilk, I'm filled with profound shame.

    Posted by: Brian | Aug 3, 2007 12:41:01 PM


  6. O'Reilly is right, though, when he admits some of the more sociopathic comments on both ultra-right and ultra-left (like the Kos) websites are just plants by the other side. The internet is very cloak-&-dagger that way.

    Posted by: Joe T. | Aug 3, 2007 12:41:31 PM


  7. I love the way conservatives and Republicans say the most vile and hateful things but accuse others who disagree with them of hate. And on O'Reilly it's all about him shouting people down--I'm glad Dodd didn't let him get away with it. O'Reilly also has the memory of a flea.

    Posted by: db | Aug 3, 2007 12:45:26 PM


  8. Then I guess O'Reilly's defending gays is a lot of bullshit too, huh, guys? Maybe some of you should actually watch the show.

    Posted by: Joe T. | Aug 3, 2007 12:49:28 PM


  9. Bill O'Reilly "defending gays"?? Where is that video?

    Posted by: Queer Beacon | Aug 3, 2007 12:59:21 PM


  10. Dodd was certainly tough here. The Internet is passive aggressive heaven though.

    Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Aug 3, 2007 1:02:45 PM


  11. I don't watch the show because my life is full of enough hateful blowhards already.

    I still have never seen anyone provide documented proof of this support from O'Reilly. I would be shocked if his support was anything substantive.

    Frankly, I don't need someone like O'Reilly defending me.

    Posted by: Brian | Aug 3, 2007 1:05:29 PM


  12. I'm not a huge O'reilly fan but this Senator Dodd doesn't know anything about O'reilly or about what he's defending with the Daily Coast. He's here for political points from the far left. I don't enjoy insults on either side and I hate to see people justify bad behavior by pointing out another persons behavior as justification. To O'Reilly's credit he was referring to when San Francisco wanted to deny the military the right to recruit in their city, he was pointing out that if they want to deny the military then they should expect no military protection in the case of a terrorist attack. Let's keep things in context and keep our arguments valid so no one looks like a kool-aid drinking loon shall we?

    Posted by: C.Williams | Aug 3, 2007 1:09:51 PM


  13. No, the people of SF were talking about DADT and how it is inconsistent with the laws in that area. They didn't want to deny recruiters access to the city. They wanted to use the obvious legal hypocrisy to change the military's regulations and force them to treat GLBT soldiers with a modicum of respect. O'Reilly, on the other hand, did not say that we should expect no military protection in case of terrorist attack. He said, quoting from the above transcription, "You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead." That's un-called for at best and un-American at worst. Further, even if SF had banned recruiters, they would still deserve full protection from the military because the people, city, and county of SF pay taxes that in turn pay for the military.

    If anyone's a kool-aid drinking loon, it's O'Reilly. Further, I didn't see anything "far-left" about Senator Dodd. What did he say that was so out of line?

    Posted by: Brian | Aug 3, 2007 1:19:36 PM


  14. Probably the best counter-argument against O'Reilly yet. Bill flat out lied about not the San Francisco statement.

    Dodd knew his stuff and Bill seemed to get pissed about that.

    Posted by: damien | Aug 3, 2007 1:22:55 PM


  15. Yeah, please provide the proof of Bill O'Reilly's support. If it exists, I don't want it. But I bet it's that typical right-wing watered down type of support--you know, love the sinner, hate the sin. What a lying gas bag. I love Dodd even more now for going on that joke of a show.

    Posted by: Martin | Aug 3, 2007 1:24:06 PM


  16. Well Joe T., you heard the people.
    They want proof of O'Reilly's support of gays. Bring on that video clip!
    The ball's in your court.

    Posted by: soulbrotha | Aug 3, 2007 1:34:17 PM


  17. Why would I lie about O'Reilly defending gays? Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I agree more with his guest with the opposing view. But I'll tell you what Towleroad won't tell you: actually watch the show sometimes. Or say you won't and...remain a willfully ignorant hick. One of the best moments was when he read a letter from a woman saying homosexuality was immoral, and that it wasn't up to him (O'Reilly) to say consenting adults can do what they want, only up to God, and that it wasn't O'Reilly's place to judge them...and O'Reilly answered "Like YOU'RE doing, madam?". Then he stated, on Falwell's death, that Falwell had been wrong to single-out gays for his attacks (this was in a discussion about whether the media should lay off the attacks on Falwell shortly after his death. O'Reilly's guests said Falwell deserved no delay in the attacks). Richard Chamberlain gave him an awesome interview (okay, that's just a celebrity, but I liked O'Reilly telling him "You and I are just fellow Americans to groups lke Al Queda). Tammy Bruce, the regular guest, is always awesome. Some crazy bitter black activist was going after Tammy Bruce once, when she mentioned solutions to crime amongst black youth (she was being nice, thoughtful, reasonable..) and this nut starts telling her, "Maybe YOU should worry about all the pedophilia in the gay community and at gay pride parades", and O'Reilly jumped in , "I see NO connection between homosexuality and pedophilia." Another time he came down hard on the ex-gay movement, though I was only told about it (didn't see it) so I can't give quotes. If I had more time I'm sure I'd think of more. The only thing I can vaguely perceive of being homophobic would be his stance on gay marriage (he's against it), though he's pro-domestic partnerships, etc. The funny thing here is, some of you will get furious at ME for saying these things, when I'm saying nothing different than "the sky was blue today." Again...I don't know why Towle has this obssession with O'Reilly. He's either being dishonest, or (more likely) never watches the show but gets his info. from dishonest O'Reilly-hating sites. It's getting silly. (You'll notice none of the anti-O'Reilly sites ever talk about his criticism of the Catholic Church, either, or his saying Bush f--ked up).

    Posted by: Joe T. | Aug 3, 2007 1:52:19 PM


  18. O'Reilly doesn't end up supporting us any more than the watered-down Christians do... "love the sinner hate the sin", "judge not lest ye be judged", etc. That's nice that he chose to point out that we're not pedophiles, but is that really what we call support from public figures these days?

    I will give O'Reilly credit for supporting me when he starts campaigning for marriage equality, advocating for equal rights for GLBT soldiers, and demanding that the international community take steps to stop the wholesale slaughter of GLBT people in the middle east. But since none of our viable presidential candidates are doing that, I doubt that O'Reilly will lead the charge.

    O'Reilly continues to advocate for a wide variety of things that I find repugnant. He also is a tool and a bully, who makes it impossible to discern his message in the cacophony of hollering that is his program. He's going to have to do better than that if he expects me to ignore the rest of his platform in favor of lukewarm passing statements.

    Posted by: Brian | Aug 3, 2007 2:05:22 PM


  19. Well Joe at this point it's all here say, what Martin actually asked you for and others no doubt would like to see including myself, is the actual footage of 'O' Reilly backing up gay people. Not some long winded diatribe about something else like Falwell, Chamberlain and Tammy Bruce. So go on produce the video and back it up. It was a simple request. Reveal the source. We'll be waiting.

    Posted by: Mac | Aug 3, 2007 2:10:53 PM


  20. O'Reilly never said gays are sinners. That's just something you're pretending, Brian. And if you disagree with some of his other stances on other issues, that's fine. Does that mean you have to agree with every single thing about someone to accept their support for gay rights? And for all of those non-action stances you point out, if that's a reason to hate somebody then you must hate every Democrat candidate too. (O'Reilly also has at least mentioned that Iran executes gays, more than I can say for most TV journalists).

    Posted by: Joe T. | Aug 3, 2007 2:13:43 PM


  21. So, Mac, you're basically accusing me of lying?

    Posted by: Joe T. | Aug 3, 2007 2:15:23 PM


  22. O'Reilly is very ambiguous on his stance towards gay people:

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200707130006
    "O'Reilly: "[T]housands" of gays in one place "can be confusing to children""

    and this is a source from the Traditional Values Coalition, which it pains me to provide a link to:
    http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=1211
    "O'Reilly told Jennings that any kid who defines himself sexually in school will become a target of harassment. He noted, 'I don't want teachers in the public school to normalize homosexuality. I don't want them to say if you're married and have a family that's good and if you're living with a homosexual partner, that's good.'"

    Posted by: Matt | Aug 3, 2007 2:17:16 PM


  23. Probably taken out of context, Matt. Probably part of his overall stance that sex education doesn't belong in grammar school at all.

    Posted by: Joe T. | Aug 3, 2007 2:19:55 PM


  24. First link has nothing to do with grammar school, just a Padre's hat giveaway. Second link is part of an article by TVC that attacks O'Reilly being supportive to any degree of gay rights.

    But I can dislike O'Reilly for any number of his views, including on sexual education, which I believe should be part of a middle school education (grammar school... really?). I also disagree with him on gay marriage; there are a number of problems with simply domestic partnerships. Just like you find more to agree with him on, I find the opposite. It doesn't mean that any of us here are completely ignorant of the fact that he may say things that we agree with occasionally.

    Posted by: Matt | Aug 3, 2007 2:25:27 PM


  25. I disagree with O'Reilly on gay marriage, too. But since he's more conservative-leaning (though definitely an Independent) I find his gay-supportive statements especially effective (as I'm sure they are to the general public) because you know it's not part of an "agenda" (like with someone like Katie Couric, who the public knows would just be reactionary in her gay-support...ho hum, what else is new?) His stance on gays comes across as more thought out and logical.

    Posted by: Joe T. | Aug 3, 2007 2:31:53 PM


  26. Good god Joe T., you need a reality check.

    Posted by: Jayden | Aug 3, 2007 2:43:54 PM


  27. Sometimes one can feel like Galileo in front of the Catholic Church on this site. Them telling him, "How DARE you say the planets move one way when we've already decided they move the other way!?" He says, "Come look in the telescope.." and they shout, "No! The Church has already decided how it is! To prison with you!" They get mad at HIM. So, again...I'll tell everybody don't believe me if you don't want to. Either watch the show yourselves sometime, or remain a wilfully ignorant bumpkin. (And demanding I show proof of what I've clamed in a video, or else I'm a "Liar!", is lame. Do you really think any of these anti-O'Reilly sites would dare to provide vids of THOSE segments of the show).

    Posted by: Joe T. | Aug 3, 2007 2:47:30 PM


  28. That is not what I said Joe. Your links provide no such evidence that 'O' Reilly has ever been or will ever be an advocate of gay rights or any such agenda. Don't change the subject on me to clarification as to whether or not you're lying. Simply put, post a link to back up your claims and not sidestep like 'O' Reilly tries to do. Making assumptions or becoming louder isn't going to work with me. It was a simple request by Martin that you didn't respond to so I called you on it also. I now doubt that you can or will provide any such source. I also want to clarify that I am in no way bashing you. I simply want to see this video if there is such a video.

    Posted by: Mac | Aug 3, 2007 2:50:47 PM


  29. Sorry, Mac. No other conclusion except that you believe I'm telling the truth about what I saw, or you think I'm lying or insane. (See Galileo post above).

    Posted by: Joe T. | Aug 3, 2007 2:55:11 PM


  30. O'Reilly doesn't have to say we're sinners. (And I'm not, in fact, pretending.) What I'm hearing in your desperate attempt to defent O'Reilly are lukewarm assertions that bigots shouldn't be judgmental, saying that Falwell was inappropriately homophobic, and asserting that gays aren't necessarily pedophiles. Not exactly worthy of Profiles in Courage, if you ask me.

    No, we don't have to agree with everything O'Reilly says in order to accept his support. What we do have to do is know what his views are about other, non-gay-related issues. O'Reilly's stances on important issues are absolutely repugnant to me, and therefore I reject the lukewarm, middling, worthless "support" that he offers. However, if he wants to change that support to advocacy for GLBT issues that will actually make a difference to someone, then I will absolutely listen with an open mind when it happens.

    Don't kid yourself. This man is a right-wing bully. An objective look at his statements and demeanor will show this clearly. You can spin him as gay-supportive all you want, but that doesn't make it so. As my grandma said... you can put kittens in the oven, but that don't make 'em biscuits.

    Posted by: Brian | Aug 3, 2007 3:15:06 PM


  31. brian -- why would your grandmother put kittens in the oven? thats gross.

    Posted by: dan | Aug 3, 2007 3:46:48 PM


  32. Western Kansas ladies realized a long time ago that kittens were delicious with a nice corn relish.

    Posted by: Brian | Aug 3, 2007 3:51:16 PM


  33. Fox "News" = scum
    O'Reilley = scum
    Joe T. = O'Reilley's felcher

    Posted by: Gregg | Aug 3, 2007 3:51:51 PM


  34. oops - I misspelled O'Reilly. How disrespectful of me.

    Posted by: Gregg | Aug 3, 2007 3:52:51 PM


  35. Joe T. is so delusional that it's almost sad.

    Posted by: SC | Aug 3, 2007 4:06:33 PM


  36. How can conservatives be proud of this guy? Seriously....

    His voice went up a couple of octaves like a little girl's. He was blathering and emotional like...

    ...well, like liberals are supposed to act. You know, those hot-headed emotional hysterical liberals you hear conservatives always griping about?

    Where's the cool-headed logic the conservatives are supposed to have in droves?

    I'll say it again: The conservatives continue to drift far from the values they claim to have.

    Posted by: mark m | Aug 3, 2007 4:10:06 PM


  37. oh, well, yeah, with corn relish...i totally get it. i thought it was just baked kitten...

    Posted by: dan | Aug 3, 2007 4:18:47 PM


  38. I am deaf. How go I get to read a transcript of what happened?

    Posted by: roy hammond | Aug 3, 2007 4:24:56 PM


  39. Bill is too worried about the gangs of lesbians building up around the country to be concerned about GLBT issues.

    Posted by: Mike | Aug 3, 2007 4:40:08 PM


  40. "I am deaf. How go I get to read a transcript of what happened?"

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291997,00.html


    Alas, the heat is lost in translation, Roy, but you'll get the gist of it as long as you remember what a hypocrytical ass O'Reilly tends to be.

    Posted by: Giovanni | Aug 3, 2007 5:41:59 PM


  41. I wish O'reilly would do the country a favor and die. Now.

    Posted by: Pecos Bill | Aug 3, 2007 10:25:10 PM


  42. TR is a hate-free zone.

    Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Aug 3, 2007 11:35:06 PM


  43. ye if you manage to prove hes not homophobic you still would have to be a rich conservative white gay male for him to talk to you cause hes sexist and racist

    Posted by: sasha | Aug 4, 2007 2:37:27 AM


  44. the major difference between towleroad and the "factor" is that f'tards like Joe T. can actually express a full sentence, let alone a complete thought. bill o' and "dubya" are the perfect examples of the american dream: you don't really have to have anything substantive to sell as long as the marketing is good and there are enough idiots able to buy your bullshit.

    Posted by: nic | Aug 4, 2007 8:37:56 AM


  45. Just a point back to Brian and others about the law SF passed. I was a resident of SF at the time, and it was a crazy ballot we had that year.

    Anyway, we did vote to keep recruiting for the military out of HS. But it was (as are many things that are passed in the great city) a symbolic resolution. Here is an article about it (and the other things passed.. like a ban on guns.... yah, San Francisco is a bit crazy, I know, lol):

    http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/09/BAG9RFKD1C82.DTL

    "San Francisco voters also supported Prop. I, a symbolic measure that makes it city policy to oppose, but not forbid, military recruiting in public schools. Fifty-nine percent of voters approved the measure, while 41 percent rejected it."

    Part of the reason people felt so strongly about this was the amount of access the miltary has to HS students, and the amount of pressure the students may feel to join. And we all know joining the military is not like signing up for college, which is easy to drop out of or change schools if you change your mind. Obviously, the war had a big impact on the vote as well.

    I'm not defending O'Reilly AT ALL - he is such a hateful person, and the residents of San Francisco were shocked and furious at his comments. I just wanted to make sure people were aware of what caused him to say it....besides, it doesn't makes him look any better!

    Posted by: gabriel | Aug 4, 2007 9:34:48 AM


  46. Let's keep things in context and keep our arguments valid so no one looks like a kool-aid drinking loon shall we?
    Posted by: C.Williams | Aug 3, 2007 1:09:51 PM
    ==================

    That comment alone, not to mention everything else you said, proves you've been imbibing. What's your favourite flavour of Kool Aid?

    With all my love,
    Aunty Em

    Posted by: Aunty Em Ericann | Aug 4, 2007 5:13:07 PM


  47. Look, Bill O'Loofa-Reilley can have his opinion on Daily Kos all he wants unfortunately there is no balance in most media and ESPCIALLY ON FAUX NEWS and Falafel Bill's only defense is to shout over guests and often (not this case) cut off microphones. Dodd is 100% correct in this case and good for him for standing his ground. Daily Kos is NOT a HATE SITE - IMO, FAUX IS a HATE network - they hate democrats, democracy, and journalism. Billy boy may believe what adults do together is fine and gays are a-okay (as long as we are not at a baseball park where, gasp, children are in attendance or we want to get married) but he is still a prick and a right-wing tool. His open invitation to destroy San Fran should have landed him in jail but his ilk never get punished (look at his buddy - Rush).

    Posted by: tjwdraws | Aug 5, 2007 7:40:46 AM


  48. I didn't see this in the discussion above, but here is Billy "Put that pipe down and get my pipe up" O's full comment on San Fran:

    O'REILLY: Hey, you know, if you want to ban military recruiting, fine, but I'm not going to give you another nickel of federal money. You know, if I'm the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium, and I say, "Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead."

    And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.

    From the November 8 broadcast of Fox News' The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly

    http://mediamatters.org/static/audio/oreilly-200511100008.mp3

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200511100008

    Posted by: tjwdraws | Aug 5, 2007 7:57:35 AM


Post a comment






Lijit Search