Right now, on the front page, there is exactly ONE post about O’Reilly. This one.

If you think that’s somehow overkill, you’ve got a very strange sense of perspective.

12thMonkey on May 31, 2009 at 9:50 PM

My perspective is just fine, thank you for your concern.

Actually, there have been SIX threads started in regards to this. Not just this one, as you allude to.

Video: O’Reilly smears Hot Air
Michelle: Thanks for smearing our site, O’Reilly
Video: O’Reilly apologizes to Hot Air, sort of
Patterico’s new O’Reilly Factor fun
Does Bill O’Reilly read Fox Nation?
O’Reilly loses his taste for internet cops

I only responded to you because you quoted me and seemed to be confused as to why I wasn’t more bent out of shape. Trust me, I don’t care if you don’t agree with me.

Now, aren’t you a bit annoyed that I keep responding? Kinda like an overkill, huh?

The first rule about BillOReilly.com is don’t talk about BillOReilly.com!

I gave up on Bill along time ago, to me hes always going to be Rush-lite.

Sorry Bill, but the whole traditionalism thing is called conservatism; stop the spin and get over it.

Right now, on the front page, there is exactly ONE post about O’Reilly. This one.

If you think that’s somehow overkill, you’ve got a very strange sense of perspective.

12thMonkey on May 31, 2009 at 9:50 PM

Well, if you think that that encapsulates the sum total of this issue and the reaction, then you’ve missed a whole heck of a lot of what’s been going on.

If you still don’t get it, I can’t help you.
moonsbreath on May 31, 2009 at 4:57 PM

Yes, thank you. I do get it.

Please don’t assume that because I don’t agree with you, it’s a matter of “not getting it.”

O’Reilly took a swipe at Hot Air, which was completely off base. Hot Air responded. O’Reilly did a half-assed retraction, which included remarks about how the comments threads in blogs need to be policed better. It was demonstrated that O’Reilly’s own site isn’t policed for comments all that well, either, despite the windbag ranting about it.

I don’t see how this is overkill on the part of Hot Air.

Right now, on the front page, there is exactly ONE post about O’Reilly. This one.

If you think that’s somehow overkill, you’ve got a very strange sense of perspective.

SDSquint on May 31, 2009 at 4:00 PM

Now I see why Hot Air disabled comments on the Tiller news story…

I would think that if you really have been posting here for years you would find what O’Reilly said as quite offensive, especially considering how flat out wrong he was in his original comments, and proved to be flat out wrong again in his semi-retraction.

Y’know, I guess you’re right. When someone like O’Reilly pokes you in the eye, you should just roll over and pretend it’s all good.

I can’t believe Hot Air would actually, like, try to point out this guy was wrong, and all. How dare they?

12thMonkey on May 31, 2009 at 2:11 PM

I guess you didn’t get my point. There was a thread posted after O’Reilly said what he did, then he apologized and several didn’t like the apology, so there have been several now about that and then some. It has nothing to do with “roll over and pretend it’s all good.” After a while, you’re the one who ends up looking like a fool and not the person you originally went after. If you still don’t get it, I can’t help you.

Also, if you don’t believe I have been here for years because I haven’t gotten bent over this, then fine, I haven’t been here for years then.

Bottom line: during the ‘08 campaign, he was every bit as negligent as the rest of the media.

I’ve never heard Bill O’ describe any tingling of any body parts, further he was the only “non opinion” journalist, that I am aware of who wasn’t actively rooting for Obama during the election.

I am glad HA defended its’ own integrity, and would expect nothing less. However, in my opinion, O’Reilly is much more valuable to conservatism than many are willing to admit.

The same thing is happening here. I’ve been posting here for a few years and I’m sorry to say that HotAir is looking extremely childish with the continuation of all these threads against O’Reilly.

moonsbreath on May 31, 2009 at 11:10 AM

I would think that if you really have been posting here for years you would find what O’Reilly said as quite offensive, especially considering how flat out wrong he was in his original comments, and proved to be flat out wrong again in his semi-retraction.

Y’know, I guess you’re right. When someone like O’Reilly pokes you in the eye, you should just roll over and pretend it’s all good.

I can’t believe Hot Air would actually, like, try to point out this guy was wrong, and all. How dare they?

O’Reilly lost my support/viewership/fandamonium when he refused to stand side-by-side with Michelle at the time when fruit loop GerrrrALDO went after our fair heroine.

Is that why blogs are so hated?

12thMonkey on May 31, 2009 at 1:58 PM

Yes.. The elites want to keep us in a pin as sheeple.

One of the things I hate about the MSM is the elitism they show toward blogs. I can understand why, for instance, the NYT wouldn’t like blogs… blogs are the future and crinkly papers that stain your fingers are going the way of the dinosaur.

But why the elitism from O’Reilly? He’s nothing special. He’s a blogger with a tv show. Why does he seem to think all these blogs out here are full of hateful right-wing fanatics that need to be disparaged at every opportunity?

I blog. I’m a small business owner with an MBA. Do I need some special certificate to be considered legit? Is there a secret handshake that makes O’Reilly all cool but Michelle, and the rest of us out here, dregs?

Blogs are awesome. They provide a wider range of information than we’ve ever had before, and give people a voice instead of shuffling them to some corner to sit quietly.

Is that why blogs are so hated?

That James is a giant walking rectum. Guess not. Move along…….

Cylor on May 31, 2009 at 12:32 PM

During the campaign, O’Reilly was the only one of the major media with guts enough to call the idiot messiah a “socialist” and challenged him to show how his redistributive ideas were not “socialism”.

Don’t blame O’Reilly because no one paid attention to that interview and what was said. It wasn’t until some weeks later that Joe Wurzelbacher got the idiot messiah to say “spread the wealth” and then open up the whole “socialist” angle.

In a way, right now we need a voice like his. He appeals to a large audience and is starting to call BS on the current administration.

No. Too little, too late. During the campaign, when it actually might have MATTERED to really investigate and publicize a lot of Obama’s disturbing statements, actions, views and associations, O’Reilly bent over backwards to show that he was giving Obama “the benefit of the doubt”, so far and in so many instances, that it was appalling. Even if the one and only semi-challenging interview Obama had during the entire campaign was when he was on the O’Reilly Factor, by Bill’s standards, it was as softball as anything I’ve ever seen.

Bottom line: during the ‘08 campaign, he was every bit as negligent as the rest of the media.

I only listened to him occasionally because he just so pompous and it exudes from every pore. At least Rush is self deprecating and funny.

This guy is certain he is a gift to everyone within earshot. I’m glad he is exposing himself (no pun intended) for what he really is.

Drunk Report on May 30, 2009 at 11:00 PM

The comment O’Reilly used of mine wasn’t offensive unless truth is offensive. I said Sotomayor is incompetent, militant and socialist. I referred to the One as Hussein. Wow that is just sooooo awful, especially when compared to the complete destruction of our way of life. Horrors!!

thomasaur on May 30, 2009 at 9:39 PM

Yeah, that was my point! Heh. He always says “Your humble correspondent..” . Or at least he did, when I could still watch regularly.

This reminds me of the comical fight between Charles at LGF and Glenn Beck. Charles had been posting a lot of negative threads about Glenn Beck. Finally, Glenn Beck mentioned Charles at LGF one time. When I looked at LGF again, there was Charles posting his crazy rants against Beck. Beck never committed again about Charles. Who do you think won that argument?

It reminds me of blog wars I’ve followed, frankly. The blog owner takes umbrage at some other blog owner’s remarks, which then dominates the blog.

Personal ego and pride….and it’s boring.