Does Bill O’Reilly read Fox Nation?

posted at 11:36 am on May 29, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

While Bill O’Reilly takes shots at Hot Air for a Hussein reference in our comments — even though both Allahpundit and I have repeatedly rejected that line of attack on this blog — he apparently doesn’t read the offerings at his own network’s political blog, Fox Nation.  They have the same kind of open comment policy we do, of course, which we support, but which O’Reilly find so distasteful in others (but not himself, apparently).  One enterprising Hot Air reader checked to see whether the HA comment that Bill found so distasteful could be found at Fox Nation, and found it in abundance.

When will we see an O’Reilly Factor exposé on the lack of standards at Fox Nation?
http://www.thefoxnation.com/politics/2009/05/15/dead-people-get-stimulus-checks
http://www.thefoxnation.com/media/2009/05/19/does-obama-have-secret-left-wing-advisor
http://www.thefoxnation.com/justice/2009/05/21/palin-hacker-defense-shes-not-entitled-privacy
http://www.thefoxnation.com/dick-rumsfeld/2009/05/14/code-pink-attacks-rumsfeld-hotel-lobby
http://www.thefoxnation.com/president-obama/2009/05/26/obama-another-jimmy-carter?page=2
http://www.thefoxnation.com/international/2009/05/14/obama-warns-israel-no-surprise-attacks-iran
http://www.thefoxnation.com/politics/2009/05/26/what-do-you-think-obamas-supreme-court-pick
http://www.thefoxnation.com/media/2009/05/21/white-house-news-dangerous
http://www.thefoxnation.com/president-obama/2009/05/21/obama-bashes-bush-fighting-terror-requires-delicate-balance
http://www.thefoxnation.com/politics/2009/04/10/sin
http://www.thefoxnation.com/politics/2009/05/19/bill-ayers-back-and-hurls-insult-reporter?page=2

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not trying to hold Fox Nation accountable for the comments left in its threads.  Fox could not run a dynamic, interesting political website if it spent all its time policing its comments sections, and neither can we.  For that matter, neither can O’Reilly, but we’re not the ones issuing sanctimonious head-wags on national TV for comments that also appear on the same network’s own political forum.  It would be nice if he’d stop being a hypocritical, screeching scold and acknowledge that.

How about it, Bill?  We’ll await the segment on your criticism of Fox Nation — and your own website — with great anticipation.

Update: David Knowles at AOL asks a good question: “But when did O’Reilly of all people become so concerned about restricting opinions that one group or other may find offensive? Isn’t that the entire premise of his show?”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

What is it about rocks and glass houses?

Grunt on May 29, 2009 at 12:37 PM

2. Bush never abused his political opponents as Hitler did, as Hussein did, and as the Left does.

The same does not apply to Obama.

So Obama had people put through wood chippers? Obama’s first action was to call in members of the government and have them dragged out of the room one by one to be killed? Obama’s sons went on beating and raping sprees across Washington DC? Obama ordered the massacre of an entire ethnic minority of the US?

Then no, Obama hasn’t acted like Saddam. You’re using the same hyperbole the Left did in making Bush out to be Hitler. We have come full circle.

Hussein is a name, a given name. Until the name is retracted, it remains the official name.

maverick muse on May 29, 2009 at 12:29 PM

I’m still waiting for citation of when Bush was called “Walker” endlessly by members of the Left.

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 12:38 PM

Does Bill O’Reilly read Fox Nation?

FIFY

LevStrauss on May 29, 2009 at 12:39 PM

What is the difference between referring to George Bush (43) as “W” and referring to Obama as “Hussein?” It is, in fact, his middle name.

kjl291 on May 29, 2009 at 12:31 PM

Honest answer: In one case, you’re referring to the full middle name of the president, and in the other you’re only using the first letter. Bush was rarely referred to as “Walker”. If that’s the rationale, then why aren’t you referring to him as “H”?

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 12:40 PM

Can I say that Mr. O’Reilly has pecksniffian attitude?

Peter_P on May 29, 2009 at 12:40 PM

This problem can be solved by everyone just using the more respectful: “King Hussein”

Even Obama would love the nickname’s association with Cleveland’s “King James” considering his comment that he’s LeBron.

econavenger on May 29, 2009 at 12:41 PM

Man, this feud can’t die soon enough for me…

TampaBayBull on May 29, 2009 at 12:20 PM

As they say in my neighborhood “don’t start none, won’t be none.”

baldilocks on May 29, 2009 at 12:31 PM

THAT defines a high road open for traffic. Given road rage, defensive driving makes more sense than evah.

maverick muse on May 29, 2009 at 12:41 PM

Great job on this post.

tneloms on May 29, 2009 at 12:43 PM

both Allahpundit and I have repeatedly rejected that line of attack on this blog

Wanted: A political blog to exchange views where the moderators aren’t moderates.

Amadeus on May 29, 2009 at 12:47 PM

Foxnation? Everybody that watches O’Reilly thinks the typewriter is awe inspiring and an intimidating form of technology. Pretty sure Bill scared all his viewers to death about the dangers of the intertubes.

LevStrauss on May 29, 2009 at 12:47 PM

What is the difference between referring to George Bush (43) as “W” and referring to Obama as “Hussein?” It is, in fact, his middle name.

kjl291 on May 29, 2009 at 12:31 PM

Honest answer: In one case, you’re referring to the full middle name of the president, and in the other you’re only using the first letter. Bush was rarely referred to as “Walker”. If that’s the rationale, then why aren’t you referring to him as “H”?

The “W” was the quicky distinction between “H.W.” and son.

“H” for Hussein would simply muddle the “W” vs. “H.W.” distinction.

If anyone wanted to reference GWB as “Walker” who’d object? But no one chose to during his presidency, and he’s retired now. But go ahead; it’s all yours.

maverick muse on May 29, 2009 at 12:49 PM

I’m still waiting for citation of when Bush was called “Walker” endlessly by members of the Left.

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 12:38 PM

It wasn’t that he was called “W” endlessly, but he was called “Dubya” (in mocking of his accent and way of speaking) endlessly. All those bumper stickers with “W” crossed out…
The middle name is fair game although I prefer to call him AckBar, you know, Pig Latin his FIRST name, sorta. ;)

NTWR on May 29, 2009 at 12:49 PM

The “W” was the quicky distinction between “H.W.” and son.

“H” for Hussein would simply muddle the “W” vs. “H.W.” distinction.

maverick muse on May 29, 2009 at 12:49 PM

So the reference was in order to distinguish between the two George Bushes that had been president? Fair enough. Is there another Barack Obama that’s been president? If there is, I haven’t heard of him.

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 12:51 PM

The middle name is fair game although I prefer to call him AckBar, you know, Pig Latin his FIRST name, sorta. ;)

NTWR on May 29, 2009 at 12:49 PM

That’s only allowable if you call him Admiral Ackbar, and immediately announce that IT’S A TRAP!

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 12:51 PM

I’m still waiting for citation of when Bush was called “Walker” endlessly by members of the Left.

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 12:38 PM

What is the difference between referring to George Bush (43) as “W” and referring to Obama as “Hussein?” It is, in fact, his middle name.

kjl291 on May 29, 2009 at 12:31 PM

Im only posting this as a reminder,Im not going to get into a pissing match with you, as I know that your intelligence and acuity far outweigh mine. I do want to add- George W.Bush morphed into Pres.Bush called Dubya, then morphed again into Dumbya on the lefty blogs.To this day you can catch that usage of Bush’s middle name on the lefty sites. That “nickname” framed many opinions of Bush early in his presidency. Dont know if it helps or not.

canditaylor68 on May 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM

THAT defines a high road open for traffic. Given road rage, defensive driving makes more sense than evah.

maverick muse on May 29, 2009 at 12:41 PM

Oh give me a break with the inappropriate metphors! I wasn’t talking about shooting anyone and I am highly insult that you would suggest such a thing.

Go “fly a kite.”

baldilocks on May 29, 2009 at 12:58 PM

there is nothing wrong with calling him hussein…its his name

Locrian on May 29, 2009 at 12:58 PM

I’m still waiting for citation of when Bush was called “Walker” endlessly by members of the Left.

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 12:38 PM

http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Talk:George_Walker_Bush

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104×1126833

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/29/162042/263

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/25/724312/-Strange-BedfellowsHarry-Reid-and-Don-King

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/the-one-big-thing-george_b_158092.html

http://www.ukprogressive.co.uk/tag/george-walker-bush

And my personal fave, whereby the Dummies claim that the “Walker” came from Johnnie Walker Scotch whiskey.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105×6082993

In the same post, they specualte that Walker’s wife Laura was named after porn star Laura Cox.

Del Dolemonte on May 29, 2009 at 12:58 PM

insult=insulted

baldilocks on May 29, 2009 at 12:58 PM

I do want to add- George W.Bush morphed into Pres.Bush called Dubya, then morphed again into Dumbya on the lefty blogs.To this day you can catch that usage of Bush’s middle name on the lefty sites. That “nickname” framed many opinions of Bush early in his presidency. Dont know if it helps or not.

canditaylor68 on May 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM

But don’t you know that “Dumbya” wasn’t meant as an insult?

katiejane on May 29, 2009 at 1:03 PM

there is nothing wrong with calling him hussein…its his name

Locrian on May 29, 2009 at 12:58 PM

Especially now since anyone who isn’t an idiot (an a goodly portion of those who are) knows that this his “middle” name. (In the Luo tradition, there is no such concept as a middle name–there is the given name, the surname and the patronymic. The latter is sometimes used and sometimes not.)

baldilocks on May 29, 2009 at 1:04 PM

both Allahpundit and I have repeatedly rejected that line of attack on this blog

Wanted: A political blog to exchange views where the moderators aren’t moderates.

Amadeus on May 29, 2009 at 12:47 PM

Well almost all the mainstream blogs are locked into heavy political correctness, almost as bad as GOP politicians are. This self-censorship instinct is exactly the effect P.C. was designed to trigger. It’s more about the bottom line and being liked. Fear is the mind-killer.

econavenger on May 29, 2009 at 1:04 PM

I’m still waiting for citation of when Bush was called “Walker” endlessly by members of the Left.
MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 12:38 PM

Never heard Bushitler? Calling Obooba “Hussein” is a term of derision. Are you shocked by that? It really came into vogue (at least I started using it) when McCain made a stink about that radio host in Cincy using his middle name.

The same ire was never raised about using Hillary’s middle name.

Akzed on May 29, 2009 at 1:05 PM

Michelle,

I am glad you are exposing this. I wish you had a national news network to make it even more public. O’Reilly in his effort to be “fair and balanced” tried too hard smearing the Right to let his liberal viewers think that he his after the right too.

Mark

http://mark24609.blogspot.com/

mark24609 on May 29, 2009 at 1:06 PM

The same ire was never raised about using Hillary’s middle name.

Akzed on May 29, 2009 at 1:05 PM

You mean her maiden name?

baldilocks on May 29, 2009 at 1:07 PM

Well almost all the mainstream blogs are locked into heavy political correctness, almost as bad as GOP politicians are. This self-censorship instinct is exactly the effect P.C. was designed to trigger. It’s more about the bottom line and being liked. Fear is the mind-killer.

econavenger on May 29, 2009 at 1:04 PM

So Allah and Ed are merely self-censoring when they say that they see no point in referring to the guy by his middle name? It’s impossible that, I dunno, they see no point in referring to the guy by his middle name?

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 1:07 PM

Never heard Bushitler? Calling Obooba “Hussein” is a term of derision. Are you shocked by that? It really came into vogue (at least I started using it) when McCain made a stink about that radio host in Cincy using his middle name.

The same ire was never raised about using Hillary’s middle name.

Akzed on May 29, 2009 at 1:05 PM

You said Bushitler…then Obooba. Hey, look at that! You’re even! You’ve sunk to the level of juvenile name manipulation that the Left was known for, but hey, you’re square! Oh, wait…now you’re going to reference his middle name, too, in order to muddle the distinction between Barack and Saddam. So, okay, you’ve now upped the intellectual dishonesty ante. Terrific. Hot Air has a bright future ahead of it if the debate is going to consist of comparing the president to a man who put his political opponents through a giant f***ing woodchipper.

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 1:11 PM

Good work.

Alana on May 29, 2009 at 1:12 PM

Bill sometimes over reaches and sticks his foot in his mouth. This is one of those occasions.

Where did you get the old picture of Bill? He has a lot less hair these days.

SC.Charlie on May 29, 2009 at 1:13 PM

O’Reilly’s ignorance on the Internet is embarrassing for him. This from a guy who was basically caught red-handed in a sex harassment scandal and bought his way out of it.

echosyst on May 29, 2009 at 1:14 PM

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 12:38 PM

You are off base, accusing me of your own banter. You seem to take things out of context.

hawksruleva, greetings!

Is there a 1:1 correlation between BusHitler and BHussein references?

1. Bush hasn’t “hitler” in his name.
2. Bush never abused his political opponents as Hitler did, as Hussein did, and as the Left does.

The same does not apply to Obama.

I agree that the high road provides the best vantage point for battle. But keep the ravines cleared of saboteurs tunneling in for cover to destroy security on the high road. It doesn’t do to simply qualify everyone with a free pass into headquarters, just as it doesn’t do to discriminate blindly against innocence.

I think Michael Savage hit the nerve last night. Politically, the Marxist Obama is yet a diplomatic adolescent. That observation is not emotionally delivered. To receive it on the emotional level (and respond in an emotional level) is not a mark against the observation or the observer sharing perception, but a mark on the recipient.

Hussein is a name, a given name. Until the name is retracted, it remains the official name.

Obama’s record is his own to defend. To date, it is radically Leftist. Obama is abruptly taking our government radically to the left. “You ain’t seen nuthin’ yet,” is how Obama put it most recently.

maverick muse on May 29, 2009 at 12:29 PM

Again, your response does not correlate very well to me, as you’ve supplanted an extremist rhetoric as mine, simply because you have a grudge of your own, and can’t quite get the hair out of your vanity without smearing others.

Hussein is Barack’s middle name. I did not give it to him.

If you bother researching my comments, you’ll find that I include his middle name in position between his first and last names, as Barack Hussein Obama.

As per my comment to which you responded HERE, mine was a response as well to the general question. (You’ll note by now other of my responses before this posts.)

As far as anyone going to the extreme, MadisonConservative, you go too far. Your ideas and your presentational delivery don’t appeal to everyone. You took offense when the word “lewd” applied to an off topic thread jack. You can’t say “sorry” though I certainly don’t need an apology, don’t even think that an apology would be necessary. Knowing when to let go of an insignificant matter is something you have yet to learn, just as learning to not make false accusations.

So here it is, “full circle”; you resemble O’Reilly.

maverick muse on May 29, 2009 at 1:19 PM

So Allah and Ed are merely self-censoring when they say that they see no point in referring to the guy by his middle name? It’s impossible that, I dunno, they see no point in referring to the guy by his middle name?

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 1:07 PM

It’s obvious that they don’t. But admonishing others against it makes no sense. Okay some may still want to play the closet Muslim angle, but so what?

1) It’s part of his legal name, and
2) It should be obvious to most observers that the idea that he may be a “closet Muslim” is the least of our worries. To paraphrase William Amos, “he’s the Manchurian Candidate all right–for Marxism.

I usually refer to him as President Obama or the president or BHO because I think that my points about him come across better that way. But others make other choices and as long as they aren’t calling the president “out of his name” there shouldn’t be a problem. Of course I don’t make the rules here since this isn’t my “house”; just giving an opinion.

baldilocks on May 29, 2009 at 1:20 PM

Hey, Bill.

Eat a bag of rocks, then jump in the lake.

I know you won’t sink, ’cause your fat head and bloated sense of self-worth won’t allow you to sink.

madmonkphotog on May 29, 2009 at 1:21 PM

As far as anyone going to the extreme, MadisonConservative, you go too far. Your ideas and your presentational delivery don’t appeal to everyone. You took offense when the word “lewd” applied to an off topic thread jack. You can’t say “sorry” though I certainly don’t need an apology, don’t even think that an apology would be necessary. Knowing when to let go of an insignificant matter is something you have yet to learn, just as learning to not make false accusations.

maverick muse on May 29, 2009 at 1:19 PM

I didn’t take offense. I mocked your shock, which was an insignificant matter you seemed concerned with, as is your sporadic references to my privileges on this site.

If you don’t like my posts, and have a personal problem with me, don’t read them and don’t respond to them, particularly if you have no interest in responding to my argument that I supplied in the post that you quoted.

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 1:22 PM

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 1:07 PM

No. That wasn’t the point. There are bigger implications beyond name choices and the comment was about most mainstream blogs.

econavenger on May 29, 2009 at 1:23 PM

It’s obvious that they don’t. But admonishing others against it makes no sense. Okay some may still want to play the closet Muslim angle, but so what?

baldilocks on May 29, 2009 at 1:20 PM

So it provides fodder for the half-witted host of one of the top shows on cable, that’s what. While most here recognize he’s a dim bulb, it still provides poor publicity, and with Fox issuing its decision months ago to soft-soap Obama, it’s no surprise that he picks up on this childish sniping crap.

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 1:27 PM

THAT defines a high road open for traffic. Given road rage, defensive driving makes more sense than evah.

maverick muse on May 29, 2009 at 12:41 PM

Oh give me a break with the inappropriate metphors! I wasn’t talking about shooting anyone and I am highly insult that you would suggest such a thing.

Go “fly a kite.”

baldilocks on May 29, 2009 at 12:58 PM

You give ME a break. I certainly was NOT talking about shooting anyone and I am insulted that YOU would say that I was.

The “high road” is the subject of the thread.

As per road rage, shooting is the EXTREME. People gesturing, yelling is the NORM. I was referencing the NORM. You took it as the extreme, projecting.

You don’t want to agree with me as I would agree with you. Fine.

maverick muse on May 29, 2009 at 1:29 PM

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 1:22 PM

I took the time to read what you’ve written to date over the years.

My comments directed to you pertain to your thoughts as expressed through your own words. If you don’t like my comments, take your own advice and don’t read them. But don’t project ill intent as mine.

If you want to claim to be a rational moderate, take back your accusation that I said Obama’s resemblance as an abuser is the literal manifestation of Saddam’s torture chamber. When ever anyone projects physical violence here, I remind them to NOT write such at HotAir. Check over this week for examples.

maverick muse on May 29, 2009 at 1:40 PM

It’s obvious that they don’t. But admonishing others against it makes no sense. Okay some may still want to play the closet Muslim angle, but so what?

baldilocks on May 29, 2009 at 1:20 PM

So it provides fodder for the half-witted host of one of the top shows on cable, that’s what.

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 1:27 PM

And? This is the same “man” who still allows another “man” in his company; the latter of which threatened to spit on a lady. That same lady owns this site. Do think that O’Reilly forgot that? He took a shot at Michelle’s site on purpose.

Why should we or anyone else try to appease such a person? Because of the size of his audience? How brave. /s

You give ME a break. I certainly was NOT talking about shooting anyone and I am insulted that YOU would say that I was.

The “high road” is the subject of the thread.

As per road rage, shooting is the EXTREME. People gesturing, yelling is the NORM. I was referencing the NORM. You took it as the extreme, projecting.

If you didn’t mean to use a metaphor that involved shooting (road rage isn’t yelling) then I accept your apology. I apologize for suggesting that you “fly a kite.”

You don’t want to agree with me as I would agree with you. Fine.

maverick muse on May 29, 2009 at 1:29 PM

You’re making an unwarranted assumption about what I “want.” I don’t agree that one should let a smearing of a reputation go and I don’t agree that it’s like road rage. It has nothing to do with what I “want.”

baldilocks on May 29, 2009 at 1:43 PM

I prefer ‘Obummer’. I think it more accurately reflects what we are all experiencing.

trigon on May 29, 2009 at 1:47 PM

maverick muse on May 29, 2009 at 1:40 PM

To your first point, I would note that recent provocations regarding either of our posts have been initiated by you, not me. I wasn’t even in the game. You just threw the ball at me and challenged me to HORSE. Your ball.

To the second, I stand by my assertion that if you’re not using his middle name to imply that he’s Muslim, you’re muddling the distinction between Barack and Saddam. There’s no other Barack Obama who has been president, so there’s no need to use his middle name to differentiate him from any other person with the same name. If you want to play dumb about it, that’s your call. It’s still infuriating to have the deeds of that sadistic, bloodthirsty dictator minimalized by comparing him to an empty-headed nincompoop who cruised his way to the presidency by having his supporters chant “hope and change”, just as it’s infuriating for the Left to do the same with Hitler and Bush.

If you’re going to do it, at least cut out the coy crap.

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Wow.

Stick.

Dead horse.

Keep on beating it, I’m sure the story will get better, right?

Spiritk9 on May 29, 2009 at 1:48 PM

It would be nice if he’d stop being a hypocritical, screeching scold and acknowledge that.

Since he doesn’t know the difference between oil and gasoline I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Bill C on May 29, 2009 at 1:51 PM

And? This is the same “man” who still allows another “man” in his company; the latter of which threatened to spit on a lady. That same lady owns this site. Do think that O’Reilly forgot that? He took a shot at Michelle’s site on purpose.

Why should we or anyone else try to appease such a person? Because of the size of his audience? How brave. /s

baldilocks on May 29, 2009 at 1:43 PM

Because of the size of his conservative and moderate audience. Unfortunately, he holds a lot of sway over them.

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 1:52 PM

[madmonkphotog on May 29, 2009 at 1:21 PM]

LOL/

Dusty on May 29, 2009 at 1:52 PM

Because of the size of his conservative and moderate audience. Unfortunately, he holds a lot of sway over them.

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 1:52 PM

Proof?

baldilocks on May 29, 2009 at 1:53 PM

Scratch my proof question. Will respond shortly.

baldilocks on May 29, 2009 at 1:55 PM

So because of the size of O’Reilly’s audience and the alleged sway that he holds over them, all and sundry are supposed to check their speech and responses in every venue?

Doing that for a RINO host who talks out of his nether regions for an audience whose individual members may or may not be able to think and investigate for self is just a futile–and just cowardly–as doing so for the Left.

baldilocks on May 29, 2009 at 2:00 PM

is just as futile

baldilocks on May 29, 2009 at 2:00 PM

So because of the size of O’Reilly’s audience and the alleged sway that he holds over them, all and sundry are supposed to check their speech and responses in every venue?

Doing that for a RINO host who talks out of his nether regions for an audience whose individual members may or may not be able to think and investigate for self is just a futile–and just cowardly–as doing so for the Left.

baldilocks on May 29, 2009 at 2:00 PM

Not when the left are actively opposing us. Moderates are waiting for the proper argument they want to hear, and are therefore receptive to the conservative message when actually delivered. As to conservatives, plenty will get turned off by the “Huissein” mantra, just as some are turned off by Ann Coulter and Mike Savage.

Yeah, O’Reilly is a jackass, and not even a RINO. Has he identified himself as Republican? I thought he claimed to be unaffiliated at some point. Either way, the guy still is the shining star at FOX. I hope like hell Beck horsewhips him and takes his timeslot, but we have to deal with the resources we have. Until the cretin’s ratings drop, he’s our best path to the electorate. We don’t necessarily need to brown-nose him, but he’s a complete idiot at reporting anything internet-related, so we need to do what we can to avoid his drooling vapidity in the future.

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 2:07 PM

Bill should have stayed at “Uncle Teds Ghoul School” WNEP-TV where his talents were appreciated.

Bicyea on May 29, 2009 at 2:11 PM

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Hey, buddy.

I would note that recent provocations regarding either of our posts have been initiated by you, not me.

“Provocations,” “dumb,” “trivialize” “coy crap” as referenced by a nuanced moderate yourself.

I reference Barack Hussein Obama as either Potus, BHO or Obama. Get that straight.

if you’re not using his middle name to imply that he’s Muslim, you’re muddling the distinction between Barack and Saddam.

It was Obama’s Muslim father and Marxist mother who gave him his name that he uses himself, having enjoyed the endorsement of Gaddafi and of course his ever loving Rev. Wright.

Obama is the quintessential opportunist.

Whatever their similarities and their differences, Obama has his faults that hurt. And given time and opportunity, there will be those whom Obama and his goons will send to be slaughtered, whether figuratively or not depends on time and opportunity.

You can claim all the self righteous indignation you want that people notice Obama’s similarities to other tyrants, AS IF those same people don’t also see differences. You can have your rants on your own dime. That has been the point you fail to accept; that you can say as you will without depending on a crutch. You may not use me as your scapegoat or as your crutch. Be a man. If that’s too difficult for you, that’s too bad. But get off my back. Formulate your own ideas without making up lies at my expense.

You will note that I have abstained from calling you names, and that I used the word “sorry” rather than overtly insult you.

maverick muse on May 29, 2009 at 2:16 PM

Moderates are waiting for the proper argument they want to hear, and are therefore receptive to the conservative message when actually delivered

What argument do the moderates want to hear that they have not heard already?

We don’t necessarily need to brown-nose him, but he’s a complete idiot at reporting anything internet-related, so we need to do what we can to avoid his drooling vapidity in the future.

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 2:07 PM

Problem is, when a person is doesn’t know what they are talking about–or wants to use any cudgel to “get back” at someone–such a person will use the most innocuous things as weapons. I still think that O’Reilly is mad at Malkin wrt to Geraldo and wanted to get back at her–even though she was the injured party. That’s how bullies behave. (Experience: having been a woman in the military, I know that there are a few men who have trouble with strong women. O’Reilly displays this trait over and over again.)

Bullies should be actively opposed and never appeased, no matter how large an audience they have in a given period of time.

baldilocks on May 29, 2009 at 2:20 PM

maverick muse on May 29, 2009 at 2:16 PM

You will note I didn’t call you a single name as well. Case in point as to provocation. If you’re jealous, ask Ed or Allah to join, and stop bringing it up to me. Also, I said “minimalize”, not “trivialize”. Reading is fundamental.

If you’re not ruling out Obama actually killing his political opponents in a “slaughter”(per your implication by “figuratively or not“), then please don’t bother to respond. If you seriously consider that a possibility, then your endorsement of the clever and wily tactic of referring to his middle name takes impotence to an astounding level(“Be a man”? Okay, internet tough guy).

I neither need a crutch, nor would you be mine if one was necessary. I’ll put this clearly: if you don’t like it, don’t start it. I’d really appreciate it if you would.

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 2:27 PM

You don’t want to agree with me as I would agree with you. Fine.

maverick muse on May 29, 2009 at 1:29 PM

You’re making an unwarranted assumption about what I “want.” I don’t agree that one should let a smearing of a reputation go and I don’t agree that it’s like road rage. It has nothing to do with what I “want.”

baldilocks on May 29, 2009 at 1:43 PM

“I don’t agree that one should let a smearing of a reputation go”

Agreed. I certainly was not smearing your reputation. As mentioned, my comment was influenced by a sythesis from many comments on this thread. Your comments are intelligent and I appreciate your thoughts. Interesting that you’d take things as you did. Not that it matters, but as far as our mutual history goes, once upon a time, when others piled onto your defensive posture, I stood up for you because you had your reasons and every right to your opinion. Was that pile-up @ Ace? I can’t even remember what it was without stopping to think back, water under the bridge and all.

“I don’t agree that it’s like road rage.”

I’m not arguing what road rage means to you or to others. As mentioned, my concept of road rage begins with gestures, shouting, tailgating, escalating to cutting off, road chasing and ultimately violence.

“You’re making an unwarranted assumption about what I ‘want’. It has nothing to do with what I ‘want’.”

As you are right, I stand corrected.

maverick muse on May 29, 2009 at 2:42 PM

Political Correctness in any form has no place in a truly free society.

If you support it in any form or fashion, then you are not a friend to freedom and liberty, but instead an instrument of tyranny.

-Dave

Dave R. on May 29, 2009 at 2:43 PM

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 1:11 PM

Um, we’re allowed to poke fun at people, especially dopes. It’s in the Bill of Rights.

Akzed on May 29, 2009 at 2:43 PM

Um, we’re allowed to poke fun at people, especially dopes. It’s in the Bill of Rights.

Akzed on May 29, 2009 at 2:43 PM

You’re citing the Constitution to defend your calling the president “Obooba”?

Good freakin’ lord, no wonder conservatism is in trouble.

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 2:48 PM

baldilocks on May 29, 2009 at 2:20 PM

When the bully affects your access to capital, like as a supervisor or other superior at work, you have three choices: quit/get fired, get them fired/to quit, or make nice.

I’d prefer we employ the second against him, but it’s tricky.

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 2:50 PM

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 2:27 PM

Again, you take things out of context, and inappropriately apply everything towards yourself, and fail to accept any apologies for miscommunications.

Case in point as to provocation.

You failed to acknowledge our right to our opinion that did not appreciate the way Allahpundit put things. Having already made my point to Allahpundit, I was talking with BigDog whom you were blathering blah.blah.blah skittering hither thither rather than admit to him you’d mis-stepped. You were ridiculing him. I stood up for him because he was right, and you were wrong.

With regards to your superiority complex, again, that’s you, you, you making everything about you, you, you.

What an absolute drag you are, MadisonConservative.

baldilocks noted that “I don’t agree that one should let a smearing of a reputation go” and that is the ONLY reason I’ve bothered to correspond with you today. But my reasoning with you is an exercise in futility.

Review if you must. You’ll note at the end that I acknowledged not noting in advance your Green Room board without taking your wormy bait.

Stupid: RNC to pass resolution rebranding Democrats the “Democrat Socialist Party”
Just the sort of smart, sober gesture we need to convince Americans of the party’s new seriousness of purpose. Even Michael Steele — Michael Steele — sees the publicity trainwreck a-comin’, although he’s powerless to stop it.

Oh well. The base will love it, and that’s all that matters.–Allahpundit

You know, something tells me you did not mean to say “vivaciousness” but I will accept it as a compliment.

BigD on May 13, 2009 at 4:53 PM

It means lively. You know, like responding by telling Allah to find other work. Hilarity.

MadisonConservative on May 13, 2009 at 4:55 PM

It means lively. You know, like responding by telling Allah to find other work. Hilarity.

MadisonConservative on May 13, 2009 at 4:55 PM

Um,, I didn’t tell Allahpundit to find other work. I told him his comment about this pleasing the base was stupid ass. There was really nothing hilarious or vivacious about it.

BigD on May 13, 2009 at 4:57 PM

Um,, I didn’t tell Allahpundit to find other work.

BigD on May 13, 2009 at 4:57 PM

Um, I didn’t claim that you did.

MadisonConservative on May 13, 2009 at 4:59 PM

BigD on May 13, 2009 at 4:57 PM

MadisonC. is begging to join the Green Room poster club.

maverick muse on May 13, 2009 at 5:03 PM

Ummm…yeahhh.

Already there, genius.

MadisonConservative on May 13, 2009 at 5:05 PM

MadisonConservative on May 13, 2009 at 5:05 PM

Not today.

Go expound for your audience.

maverick muse on May 13, 2009 at 5:06 PM

MadisonConservative O’Reilly, again, you have made another thread all about you, you, you.

maverick muse on May 29, 2009 at 3:06 PM

When the bully affects your access to capital, like as a supervisor or other superior at work, you have three choices: quit/get fired, get them fired/to quit, or make nice.

I’d prefer we employ the second against him, but it’s tricky.

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 2:50 PM

Anything worth having contains risk.

baldilocks on May 29, 2009 at 3:10 PM

MadisonConservative O’Reilly, again, you have made another thread all about you, you, you.

maverick muse on May 29, 2009 at 3:06 PM

Actually, you’re the only one making it about me. I’ve asked you to stop. Your obsession is taking up a lot of space.

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 3:16 PM

Good freakin’ lord, no wonder conservatism is in trouble.

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 2:48 PM

Conservativism is in trouble because of the weak-minded attitude that generates the faux outrage and silliness exhibited by these “O’Reilly smeared HotAir” threads and the idiocy of posting “HOMO” on Fox nation and then screaming about it.

Frankly, this is embarrassing to watch.

progressoverpeace on May 29, 2009 at 3:18 PM

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 3:16 PM

As you want to keep score, this marks the third time I’ve suggested we part without animosity, and the third time following your abusive language that you’ve failed to retract your errors in judgment and lies that YOU attributed to me. That is a crutch, to assume perfection and never admit when you are wrong.

Your words fail you.

maverick muse on May 29, 2009 at 3:25 PM

It would be nice if he’d stop being a hypocritical, screeching scold and acknowledge that.

A “screeching scold” is precisely what Mr. O’s become in the few months, and it’s become tedious, to say the least.

What really bother’s me is that most of his scolding is aimed at Republicans and Conservatives, holding them to a much higher standard than their political and social counterparts. And it all started with his push to be able to secure big name Dems and Libs/Progs for interviews on his show. Somehow “policing” their opponents is supposed to win the approval of people like Obama and their ilk.

Perhaps Glenn Beck’s unexpectedly huge success is putting pressure on the other prime time pundits over at Fox, which apparently, for Bill, translates to being able to snag big name ratings grabbers for his show, especially those of the Lib/Prob/Dem bent.

Too bad, too, because that makes it difficult for many of us to determine whether he’s a sincerely objective pundit, or merely a ratings junky.

KendraWilder on May 29, 2009 at 3:27 PM

As you want to keep score, this marks the third time I’ve suggested we part without animosity

maverick muse on May 29, 2009 at 3:25 PM

This marks the umpteenth occurrence of your intellectual dishonesty.

Having already made my point to Allahpundit, I was talking with BigDog whom you were blathering blah.blah.blah skittering hither thither rather than admit to him you’d mis-stepped.

What an absolute drag you are, MadisonConservative.

I have, in fact, invited you multiple times to end your obsessive envy-fueled haranguing that leads to these scuffles. You delight in sniping at me because you don’t like my style. I don’t like yours either, but I don’t passively antagonize you when you haven’t addressed me. You are a prime-cut hypocrite. It could have ended with you not jumping on me. In this thread in particular, my first response to you was a fair argument, which you completely ignored. You show no interest in civil conversation with me. Please, stop feigning your perceived moral high ground, and actually do what you claim to want to do: stop.

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 3:34 PM

Excellent way of making your point, Ed. If everyone read Hot Air, there would be no problem at all with this.

If everyone read Hot Air…well…the world would probably be a better place.

Aronne on May 29, 2009 at 4:08 PM

Wow. Maybe we’ll see a new daily OReilly attack feature.

This is the ONLY thing OReilly said in reference to HotAir (in reference to the specific comment):

“Hussein’s, that’s the president.”

He NEVER EVER smeared the site. With the Hussein comment, he merely pointed out the guy was referring to the president by saying “that’s the president,” and he moved right along to the left-wing sites.

That is ALL he said about the comment. He never attacked it as wrong, he never attacked it as hateful, he never attacked HotAir as hateful, he merely said the guy who made the comment, and when referring to Freep and HotAir he specifically said “these are comments,” wasn’t living in the US if he thought Sotomayor wouldn’t be confirmed.

There was absolutely no smear, and to say there was is either delusion or dishonesty.

Is Michelle really this thin-skinned, and are all those who comment here really that into group think that you turn into foam-at-the-mouth O’Rreilly haters?

Geez. This makes you guys look like the biggest bunch of babies imaginable.

TheBlueSite on May 29, 2009 at 4:16 PM

Another thought- this whole episode completely supports what OReilly says about comments on blogs. Someone screams, “smear” when no smear ever took place. Then suddenly you all turn into dolts who want to transform the entire thing into an all-out O’Reilly hate-fest.

It’s hilarious.

TheBlueSite on May 29, 2009 at 4:20 PM

TheBlueSite on May 29, 2009 at 4:16 PM

Give it a rest. Some of us have been rolling our eyes at O’Reilly’s ridiculous “policing the net” segments for quite some time.

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 4:22 PM

I won’t give it a rest. Just as I’d call Obama out for being dishonest, I’ll call out Ed and Malkin for being dishonest. It’s absurd. There was no smear whatsoever, and to post 4 times about this imaginary smear makes the entire site look stupid.

TheBlueSite on May 29, 2009 at 4:26 PM

I just posted my analysis on the subject

http://mark24609.blogspot.com/2009/05/bill-oreillys-war-of-words.html

Mark

mark24609 on May 29, 2009 at 4:26 PM

I won’t give it a rest. Just as I’d call Obama out for being dishonest, I’ll call out Ed and Malkin for being dishonest. It’s absurd. There was no smear whatsoever, and to post 4 times about this imaginary smear makes the entire site look stupid.

TheBlueSite on May 29, 2009 at 4:26 PM

Again you’re arguing semantics when all that matters was what the viewers thought he meant. This is far from the first time he’s presented comments on a site as representing a site. Hell, the guy admitted he’d like to legislate speech on the net.

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 4:30 PM

TheBlueSite on May 29, 2009 at 4:20 PM

Exactly.

progressoverpeace on May 29, 2009 at 4:30 PM

Again you’re arguing semantics when all that matters was what the viewers thought he meant.

I’m a viewer and it was perfectly clear what he meant, which is not what the pantywastes, here, are screaming about. The way people are describing the “smear” makes me think that most of them don’t understand English.

This is far from the first time he’s presented comments on a site as representing a site. Hell, the guy admitted he’d like to legislate speech on the net.

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 4:30 PM

dogsoldier’s comment was certainly representative of the comments on this site, and it was a fine comment. Of course, it wasn’t reflective of the bloggers here, one of whom liked to assure people during the election that the idiot messiah “has brains to spare for the job”. Now, that was stupid. If O’Reilly had read that moronic BLOG POST on the air, that would have been a “smear” of HA.

progressoverpeace on May 29, 2009 at 4:35 PM

Again you’re arguing semantics when all that matters was what the viewers thought he meant. This is far from the first time he’s presented comments on a site as representing a site.

Again, OReilly does NOT produce or direct the show. He almost certainly doesn’t choose the wording on the onscreen graphics. YOU are arguing semantics. It said “blog posting.” (which is an accurate description of a comment, but not the best choice of words.) He said, with his own mouth, “these are some comments.” Carpenter was talking specifically about comments and comments only in her snippet of the conversation. I didn’t hear the segment and take it to mean it came directly from the site author, but maybe that just makes me smarter than everyone else who seems to think that’s what he meant?

On top of all of that, he NEVER smeared the site. He never took shots at the comment for using the name Hussein. He said, and I quote, “Hussein, that’s the president,” and then moved right along. Smear? I can’t see how. Clarification, as many Factor viewers probably have no idea what Obama’s middle name is? Most probable.

TheBlueSite on May 29, 2009 at 4:35 PM

There’s change in the air.

The nation already had a federal cyber security chief designated by Bush, his second appointment in place whom Obama’s people aborted for not representing the Washingtonian Democrat socialist line, he having concerns with the direction of federal abuse of invasive and prosecutorial powers.

Obama is presently developing another layer, a new position as an internet Czar.

It isn’t as though the internet should be a “free” target for viruses and sabotage, as it is by nature of the beast.

However, the language of legislation and the protocol of this presidency leaves online users subject to abusive prosecution. I noted the other week the story regarding a North Carolina home schooled kid from a single parent (mom) Christian home, whisked away into federal confinement with no legal representation and no communication with his mother who claimed he was the victim of identity theft. The FBI Homeland Security raided their home and took him abruptly away, though there were no bomb making elements anywhere in his house. He was accused of having made a bomb threat, though evidently the threat was online and his online address had been hijacked. Maybe he is innocent. Maybe he left a very ugly comment, in which case, why not put the boy into therapy before throwing him into a juvenile federal prison–no bomb equipment was anywhere in his home.

The moral of the story, beware. Particularly right wing people, beware of being set up on false charges as a right wing extremist threatening violence.

Focus on HotAir since this is where we are. Given the real threat of prosecutorial abuse, there is the need to refine in order to steer clear of being a whipping boy or political scapegoat. That is understood and appreciated.

That there would be any here who would slander another in order to score either popularity or titular points is reprehensible. Making this point has nothing to do with “envy” and everything to do with security, a clean record and reputation.

maverick muse on May 29, 2009 at 4:48 PM

If O’Reilly had read that moronic BLOG POST on the air, that would have been a “smear” of HA.

progressoverpeace on May 29, 2009 at 4:35 PM

You’re such a sweetheart.

Again, OReilly does NOT produce or direct the show. He almost certainly doesn’t choose the wording on the onscreen graphics.

TheBlueSite on May 29, 2009 at 4:35 PM

Uh huh. The guy is a confirmed megalomaniac with little patience for things not being the way he wants them. Hey though, you go ahead and love the guy. Send him a loofah.

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 4:49 PM

This problem can be solved by everyone just using the more respectful: “King Hussein

econavenger on May 29, 2009 at 12:41 PM

Masterful

faraway on May 29, 2009 at 5:04 PM

ill call him Hussein all day long, and yes it is because it is a Muslim name, the name of our President whom is fighting radical muslims trying to kill US.

Im sure if a senator’s name was Richard Fud Packer, i’m sure you’d find it odd the headline “Dick fudge packer wants to legalize homosexual marriage” . Though this is a mute/dumb example; what isn’t mute is the fact we are fighting MUSLIM extremist, and the man in charge was at one point in his life MUSLIM, and has a Muslim name, and a Muslim father, and is a democrat who are historically weak on defense.

So, im not saying the man is still a muslim, but Trinity united church is def not a “christian” church , and the left and church do not really mix well on a whole.

So lets review -
Its okay to call him Hussien for that is his name – regardless of your intention of it,
: be it you just innocently calling him his middle name;
:you think its funny he has the same name as a Dictator that murdered thousands of people.
:Be it you think he is still Muslim, or a Muslim sympathizer or just weak on terrorism who cares?

So – unless your a pansy , call the guy what ever you want, its meant to be disrespectful and as far as i know, its not illegal to be disrespectful.. especially to a man who is a radical and destroying our country … as we know it.

Donut on May 29, 2009 at 5:05 PM

Though this is a mute/dumb example; what isn’t mute is the fact we are fighting MUSLIM extremist, and the man in charge was at one point in his life MUSLIM, and has a Muslim name, and a Muslim father…

…So, im not saying the man is still a muslim…

No, of course not.

So – unless your a pansy…

Donut on May 29, 2009 at 5:05 PM

You heard it here. If you don’t refer to Barack Obama by his middle name, you’re a pansy.

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 5:12 PM

I’m still waiting for citation of when Bush was called “Walker” endlessly by members of the Left.

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 12:38 PM

No need to wait. During the Democratic convention leading up to the 1992 election, every Democratic candidate running for President referred to President Bush over and over again as, “George Herbert Walker Bush.” Granted, that was Bush 41 rather than Bush 43, but it certainly proves the point.

It also answers the question of when people use your name against you in politics: any time they perceive an advantage in doing it. In Bush 41′s case, the goal was to make him seem elitist and out of touch. In Obama’s case, the goal is to emphasize where he came from, and that he’s out of touch with the heartland. It’s basically the same thing.

tom on May 29, 2009 at 5:19 PM

Barack Hussein “Hope And Change” Obama

8-track-vinyl on May 29, 2009 at 5:28 PM

No, of course not.
MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 5:12 PM

:) yet, you can not honestly say the guy was never a muslim can you?

And with the same name as another Muslim who, by the way, murdered, killed, raped his own people and also openly denounced jews and gave money and support to Hamas…. SO I really don’t understand why it is not fair game to call him Hussein.

What i think is getting Madison so … angry? is the fact nobody will admit why they are calling him Hussein. Though i can honestly say that if his name was Barrack Mohamed Obama, we would all call him Mohamed, the fact his name is Hussein makes people use it less.

So – i guess the point to all this is, if the guys middle name was Frank, nobody would call him Frank. But because his name is insulting to him, we call him by it. There is nothing wrong with it. It is disrespectful yes, but the man has not earned respect… not mine at least .

O, and I might just be talking for myself, and not for everybody who calls him by his middle name.

Donut on May 29, 2009 at 5:31 PM

Fox Nation is as vile as DU and HuffPost, just God-awful tripe.

AprilOrit on May 29, 2009 at 5:35 PM

God-awful tripe for those on the edge – derange-ees. The Left was deranged over Bush and this current group is the Right Wing prototype of the same type of derangement – toward Obama.

These people, all of them collectively – are so unhappy you wonder what makes them tick in their real lives.

AprilOrit on May 29, 2009 at 5:38 PM

God-awful tripe for those on the edge – derange-ees. The Left was deranged over Bush and this current group is the Right Wing prototype of the same type of derangement – toward Obama.

These people, all of them collectively – are so unhappy you wonder what makes them tick in their real lives.

AprilOrit on May 29, 2009 at 5:38 PM

Ya, that is true to the extent we do not like anything he has done…

But, to be fair, even when Bush implemented liberal policies, the left dumped on him. Such as huge increase in education (doubled it from Clinton era) and No child left behind. Or just random spending Bush did that he got no credit for.

Now look at Obama, everything we disagree with him on, is merited. He is a socialist liberal, spending and taxing, and promoted abortions… in his first 100 days no less!. When Hussein decided to stay in iraq, we all cheered him, when he made time tables afterward, we boo’d.

So, conclusion
- Left hated Bush regardless of what he did or believed be it a liberal policy or conservative one.

–the Right – Hates obama because he is a radical Leftist that has not compromised or been moderate in any way. We will give credit when credit is due, we also actually went against a “republican”, yet Democrats find it impossible to criticize Obambi. to sum it up, we are smarter than liberals and can see more than just partisanship. A bad choice is a bad choice regardless of what letter is in parenthesis next to their name.

Donut on May 29, 2009 at 6:08 PM

yet, you can not honestly say the guy was never a muslim can you?

Donut on May 29, 2009 at 5:31 PM

Neither you nor I know the guy’s faith. The only Muslim connection he has is that his Muslim father wrote down the religion of his son as Muslim…when he was about 5 or 6.

We haven’t a bit of proof that he has taken to Islam throughout his life through his own choice. I simply advocate keeping an eye on the ball. The guy is a socialist creep who belongs to a black supremacist religion.

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 7:56 PM

Donut on May 29, 2009 at 5:31 PM

FWIW, I never said that calling him by his middle name was not “fair game”, though that phrase holds a great deal of ominous terror for me given its context within Scientology.

I simply think that the usage of it merely to insult him is a full circle gesture – that some on our side have transformed into what we couldn’t wait to be rid of for the last 8 years.

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 7:58 PM

Only the phoney O’Reilly would make a big deal about mentioning the Messiah’s middle name.

Who reads Fox Nation? And who cares?

Tempest in a teapot.

Friendly21 on May 29, 2009 at 8:11 PM

Oreilly gets the “Pinhead” adminishment this week. Someone needs to explain to him what a “blogger” is.

paulsur on May 29, 2009 at 9:55 PM

Ya, that is true to the extent we do not like anything he has done…

But, to be fair, even when Bush implemented liberal policies, the left dumped on him. Such as huge increase in education (doubled it from Clinton era) and No child left behind. Or just random spending Bush did that he got no credit for.

Now look at Obama, everything we disagree with him on, is merited. He is a socialist liberal, spending and taxing, and promoted abortions… in his first 100 days no less!. When Hussein decided to stay in iraq, we all cheered him, when he made time tables afterward, we boo’d.

So, conclusion
- Left hated Bush regardless of what he did or believed be it a liberal policy or conservative one.

–the Right – Hates obama because he is a radical Leftist that has not compromised or been moderate in any way. We will give credit when credit is due, we also actually went against a “republican”, yet Democrats find it impossible to criticize Obambi. to sum it up, we are smarter than liberals and can see more than just partisanship. A bad choice is a bad choice regardless of what letter is in parenthesis next to their name.

Donut on May 29, 2009 at 6:08 PM

Good point, well taken.

AprilOrit on May 29, 2009 at 11:05 PM

Since when are public figures, especially elected ones, free from ridicule and/or criticism?

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 29, 2009 at 11:23 PM

What is the difference between referring to George Bush (43) as “W” and referring to Obama as “Hussein?” It is, in fact, his middle name.

kjl291 on May 29, 2009 at 12:31 PM

Honest answer: In one case, you’re referring to the full middle name of the president, and in the other you’re only using the first letter. Bush was rarely referred to as “Walker”. If that’s the rationale, then why aren’t you referring to him as “H”?

OK, so I am permitted to say “H” but not “Hussein?” Thanks for clearing that up. Any other rules you’d like to share Mr. Thought Policeman?

kjl291 on May 30, 2009 at 1:57 AM

Locrian on May 29, 2009 at 12:58 PM

Its a name he CHOSE, for political purposes. The facts shoe the man has had several personas.

He was Barry Soetoro for a while. We don’t know his actual birth name, but it may have been Barry Dunham. He has used the name Barry Dunham and Barack Dunham in the past. His name is a FARCE, so I refer to him as Hussein. He settled on that persona for political purposes.

dogsoldier on May 30, 2009 at 10:45 AM

Did I write shoe? I meant show. sorry for the double post.

dogsoldier on May 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM

Comment pages: 1 2