Did MKH say “supposably” ? just sayin….

max1 on January 17, 2008 at 10:58 AM

I did not.

marykatharine on January 17, 2008 at 5:38 PM

As I have a Sister Toldjah-certified Wisconsin accent, I’ll handle the challenge.

After further review, MKH did not say “supposably”. The ruling on the field is reversed. Touchdown, Hammer.

I would marry her in a heartbeat.

One is an arrogant blowhard. A person can be this and still make occasional good points.

The other is an outright liar. No comparison.

MadisonConservative on January 17, 2008 at 12:51 PM

I agree. There is no comparison.

But the way some commenters here let O’Reilly have it each week, you’d think he was Keith Olbermann (a man who actually deserves such vitriol, in my opinion). That was my point.

Did MKH say “supposably” ? just sayin….

I did not.

Does anyone under the age of 40 take O’Reilly seriously anymore?

Enrique on January 17, 2008 at 9:59 AM

No.

Bill O’Reilly is not a jackass.

Signed,
The Internet

Jim Treacher on January 17, 2008 at 10:49 AM

Rumor!

- The Cat

You’d think O’Reilly was Keith Olbermann sometimes….

Hawkins1701 on January 17, 2008 at 12:49 PM

One is an arrogant blowhard. A person can be this and still make occasional good points.

The other is an outright liar. No comparison.

Those of you who are using this as an occasion for O’Reilly bashing are ignoring the fact that he had a good point.

backwoods conservative on January 17, 2008 at 9:48 AM

Don’t bother.

A week is not complete at Hot Air without people getting off on bashing O’Reilly.

I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve read “O’Reilly is such a douche” and such in threads like these.

(And for the record, I think O’Reilly’s “the Internet is always bad” crusade is getting a bit heavy handed and silly.

There, you see? I did that without hurling childish obscenities his way, or telling the world how much I hate him for the umpteenth time.)

You’d think O’Reilly was Keith Olbermann sometimes….

MadisonConservative on January 17, 2008 at 12:13 PM

If you say so. I’m not buying it. I watched the clip again and I didn’t hear him say it wasn’t more trustworthy than it was 10 years ago. I heard him say don’t default trust it.

The point you make about the Fred’s hat rule and Mitt’s say anything line, is the point. Both had to be tracked back to be put in the appropriate context, when, which down, refuted the original point of the reference in the first place. Both those charges were put online and because people did what Bill said (distrusted) they looked it up and proved it erroneous. That policy makes sense to me.

Message to older generations:

MadisonConservative on January 17, 2008 at 10:17 AM

I am the older generation and one of the very first pre-blog journalists. O’Reilly is simply not internet-savvy. Maybe that will change under MKH’s tutelage. Maybe not.

Even the best sites like this have ‘need to verify’ moments.

Spirit of 1776 on January 17, 2008 at 11:36 AM

Except that BOR is using the decade-old generalization. 10 years ago, validation and fact-checking were as regular on the internet as they are at the Associated Press. Now, lots of people are very critical and hold sites like these to high standards. Remember the “silly hat rule” from Politico? People scoured for verification, and guess what? We came up with internet-streaming video from CBS giving us a firsthand undeniable account. Now we scrutinize Politico and other such stories with even more oomph.

The point is that Bill is making his point that the internet is no more trustworthy than it was ten years ago, and that it certainly has NOTHING on the mainstream media. That’s hogwash.

Did MKH say “supposably” ? just sayin…. aksing…..

max1 on January 17, 2008 at 10:58 AM

Fixed it.

He increasingly sounds like the crazy old man that shakes his cane at you and screams “get off my lawn!”

That’s the truth. Sadly, madness draws ratings sometimes.

Bill O’Stuffedshirt is a pompous self-absorbed bore.

I’ll make it easy to understand:
I don’t do auctions
I do make major purchases from reputable sites

Onager on January 17, 2008 at 11:07 AM

Plenty of “reputable” sites are just as, if not more dangerous and/or problematic than a great deal of sellers on EBay.

Honestly, in the 15 years that I’ve been using the net, and the dozens, if not hundreds, of testimonals I’ve heard from others about how they got screwed on the net, I could count on one hand the number of them that actually got screwed. All the rest disobeyed some basic bit of advice that I or others gave them; the most common being “Read the ENTIRE AD ON EBAY!” They get so angry because they clicked bid after looking at the picture and the price, or they gave their credit card number to some site I’ve NEVER heard of because they had a deal that was too good to be true.

Almost a decade into the new millennium, and people still don’t get the concept of “too good to be true”.

Hint: That’s because it’s not.

MKH is totally hot!

pilamaye on January 17, 2008 at 9:48 AM

True!

On B O’R, he’s morhping into a weird quasi-conservative larry king

…and this is why people lose money on purchases over the internet.

MadisonConservative on January 17, 2008 at 11:03 AM

Careful – you read that on the ‘net.

I’ll make it easy to understand:
I don’t do auctions
I do make major purchases from reputable sites

I lost $400 on an Amazon.com auction purchase and know someone else who lost $1,200 on a laptop purchase. Regardless, I do most major purchases via the ‘net.

Onager on January 17, 2008 at 10:50 AM

…and this is why people lose money on purchases over the internet.