In Depth: Olbermann vs. O’Reilly/It happened to Alexa Foundation…

If you’ve been following Countdown the past few days, you’ll know that Keith Olbermann has been on a tear over Bill O’Reilly speaking at the “It happened to Alexa Foundation” fundraiser. Olbermann has been bringing up the Jennifer Moore incident; something Olbermann has brought up before.

Olbermann has been going after O’Reilly’s participation with the Alexa Foundation pretty strongly. This incident has made the last two WPiTW segments. Well this morning, someone claiming to be Ellen Augello, the Executive Director of the It happened to Alexa Foundation, posted a comment on Johnny Dollar’s Place regarding what Olbermann was doing…

I am the Executive Director for the “It Happened to Alexa Foundation”. I wanted to thank you for offering your support to our cause. We of course were thrilled to have someone of Mr. O’Reilly’s stature offer to speak at our event. The fact that he has agreed to do so at no cost, so that all of the proceeds of the event can be used for the victims we serve, is very generous. Instead of receiving support from groups who believe themselves to be progressive and enlightened, we have been besieged by KO followers who, for whatever misguided reason, feel as though it is their duty to tell everyone they come into contact with not to support us. Although we are a national foundation, we are staffed by one full-time employee and one part-time employee, both of whom are quite modestly paid. Almost all of the funding coming into the Foundation goes directly to the victims we serve. So I ask you, who are these zealots truly hurting?


You don’t normally see people like that post these types of comments and the use of the “KO” abbreviation was a read flag, so naturally I was suspicious. I sent an email inquiry in to Ms. Augello regarding this and I tried repeatedly to reach her by phone but I probably called too late in the day (three hour time difference) as I kept getting the Alexa Foundation’s answering machine. Dollar says that someone had talked to her and, while not 100% proof positive, both were convinced it was her. Also the comment’s IP trace went back to the correct location. So, while it could still be a fake out, it doesn’t seem likely. I will keep following up on this and hopefully will be able to hear from Ms. Augello tomorrow.

Update: This may be part of what Augello is referring to about the flak the Alexa Foundation is getting…

I am not even more livid, because the Executive Director Ellen Augello issued a short public statement about the uproar: “Bill O’Reilly is still speaking at the fundraiser. We are aware aware of his comments. We don’t have any comment about it. I don’t feel as if it would be productive.” ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? This defiance is grossly upsetting. Apparently one of the members of its advisory board is a FRIEND of O’Reilly.

It is upsetting because this is the only organization of its kind, but I hesitate to support a group that obviously only cares about the money it is bringing in and not its message.

If you find this choice of Bill O’Reilly as outrageous as I do, I strongly encourage yout to e-mail the Alexa Foundation at info@ithappenedtoalexa.org Or the Executive Director directly at augellos@verizon.net. This is simply unacceptable.

Update 2: Round three or four happened tonight.

Update 3: I can verify that Ellen did post that comment on Johnny Dollar’s Place…

Advertisements

156 Responses to “In Depth: Olbermann vs. O’Reilly/It happened to Alexa Foundation…”

  1. joeremi Says:

    I don’t agree with people encouraging others to withdraw support for this group, but I don’t see how that is Olbermann’s fault. He has made no such request. Alexa is knowingly allowing a speaker with a history of blaming the victim to represent them. That would make me suspicious of they’re priorities, which would make me nervous about handing them money.

    The problem here isn’t Keith’s questions, it’s O’Reilly’s history. He accused that boy who was abducted and raped for years of enjoying it, and he said the girl stuck without a car in a mini dress at 2AM had it coming. He needs to apologize to the victims and their families before he starts representing himself as a supporter of victims.

  2. zonedaiatlas Says:

    Specially when Olbermann and Media Matters misquoted O’reilly’s again. If you listen to hour #2 that is not what O’reilly said or meant! Olbermann needs to seek professional help!

  3. joeremi Says:

    Zone, I have no idea what hour #2 means. Care to enlighten me on what “any predator would go after that” means, other than the obvious?

  4. I don’t think Olbermann is helping any. He may not be the underlying cause but he’s certainly pouring gasoline on the fire. If it wasn’t about O’Reilly would he be devoting this much time to the subject? I doubt it.

    It’s not in O’Reilly’s nature to apologize even if he knows he’s wrong. It’s some sort of personality disorder. He’s not the only one on the air at 8pm who has one, btw.

  5. zonedaiatlas Says:

    ICN2, Excuse me? O’Reilly does apologize if he knows he’s wrong unlike Olbermann. Olbermann in his leaked emails doesn’t answers to nobody!

  6. joeremi Says:

    O’Reilly has a pervert’s point of view when it comes to stories about young sex victims. That’s a pretty bad disorder.

  7. zonedaiatlas Says:

    Keith Olbermann and Meida Matters took a clip from his radio and snip a certain part to make it sound bad. If you listen to the entire broadcast that is not what O’reilly meant just like the “I want the President Failed” comment by rush Limbaugh. If you listen to the full comment what he said, He want the President to succeed but if his policies are Socialism then I want him to fail…

  8. There have been many times when Olbermann actually had a case with O’Reilly, when O’Reilly was clearly wrong, the Jennifer Moore and Shawn Hornbeck incidents being two I can think of (and then there’s Malmedy), and O’Reilly, instead of apologizing or at the very least admitting what he said was not well thought out, got all technical and tried to explain it away. I think because Olbermann had O’Reilly dead to rights that O’Reilly would deliberately avoid apologizing because it would validate Olbermann.

    Olbermann has been plenty wrong too. And he doesn’t always apologize for everything but I’ve seen him do it a few times.

  9. zonedaiatlas Says:

    Pervert? Like Olbermann? He has some serious problems treating women in the work place. Just ask Stacey Holbar of ESPN what he did to her or Rebecca Lobo of the WNBA when she almost filed a restraining order against Olbermann. And lets not forget Olbermann’s shortcomings in bed…

  10. zonedaiatlas Says:

    ICN2, I do believe O’reilly had the Malmedy incident correct on his Factor website but misquoted on his TV Show, which Media Matters failed to mention…

  11. If you listen to the full comment what he said, He want the President to succeed but if his policies are Socialism then I want him to fail…

    Not to open up a can of worms…oh what the hell…Since Limbaugh believes Obama’s policies are Socialism, therefore he does want him to fail.

  12. zonedaiatlas Says:

    When Olbermann apologizes it’s half ass with a snide remark or a forced apology…

  13. ICN2, I do believe O’reilly had the Malmedy incident correct on his Factor website but misquoted on his TV Show,

    If that’s true then he did it to himself twice because he brought up Malmedy on two seperate occasions. Once, I could see as maybe a mistake. Twice? No way.

  14. joeremi Says:

    Zoned, you can either reproduce your alternate context of his comment or you can’t. Now try again: What is the alternate context of “any predator would go after that”? What other reason is there to mention the time of night, the towed car (because the girls were “stupid), the mini dress, the halter top, and the belief that any predator would attack her? It’s either an accusation against the victim or a defense of the attacker, or both. Give me another reason to mention all these things.

  15. When Olbermann apologizes it’s half ass with a snide remark or a forced apology…

    It was for the Rudi Giullianni thing but it definitely wasn’t for the Ho-Pax incident, which ironically Olbermann wasn’t even on the air for.

  16. zonedaiatlas Says:

    ICN2, Rush Limbaugh said if Obama’s policies are Capitalism and Liberty then he wants him to succeed but if his policies based on Collectisim or some would say Socialism then yes, I want him to fail. There is nothing wrong what Rush Limbaugh said. I don’t want my country turn into a Socialist Nanny State. And if Obama wants to turn the US into another Chicago, you damn right I want him to fail!

  17. zonedaiatlas Says:

    Watch Olbermann when he rarely apologized on air. He blames someone else for the mess plus his apologizes are half ass or forced.

  18. joeremi Says:

    Nice Limbaugh digression, Zoned. Now answer the question. By the way, “KO is a pervert, too” is a weak defense. You’ve got a lot of work to do.

  19. That’s all nuance. The crux of the matter is he wants the President to fail. It doesn’t matter why or what the conditions are.

    Not that I really care. Blowards aren’t worth listening to and aren’t any better than the idiots that wanted Bush to fail in the War on Terror.

  20. zonedaiatlas Says:

    Wait, It wasn’t Stacey Holbar, It was Susan Kolber of ESPN.

  21. zonedaiatlas Says:

    Joeremi, Maybe you should ask Olbermann about “Karmabites1″ and his shortcomings? I answered your question and don’t use Media Matters for your source of facts. Go to Bill Oreilly’s website and click on premium members and listen to the August 2, 2006 “Radio Factor” and hear what O’reilly was saying in context.

  22. zonedaiatlas Says:

    Johnny Dollar said it best here…

    I have prosecuted child abusers, rapists…as I liked to say: “Rape, robbery, murder…I’ve tried ’em all.” And I also know very well what rape prevention centers and programs tell women. There isn’t one that I know of that would recommend that a woman go walking by herself under the influence in provocative dress at 2:00 am in a remote sparsely populated area. That’s just painting a target on yourself. For Oralmann and his sick buddies to try to make this into blaming the victim is typical of his diseased envy. If someone were to take “Man on Fan” Olbermann seriously and recommend to women that they do nothing to avoid putting themselves in risky situations, what exactly would that accomplish for rape prevention? Um, it would make things worse. Ya think?

    The reason why O’Reilly is a target is because he fought for, and in many cases succeeded, in getting tough child rape laws passed in most of the US. And there are people who don’t like that. (One can only imagine why Olbermann would be invested in discrediting the fight for tougher laws against child rape.) That’s why they’ve launched a drive to get O’Reilly disinvited to the Alexa event–an event he promoted again tonight on The Factor. This is one campaign the infamous, deplorable Olbermann should not be permitted to win.

  23. joeremi Says:

    What a bunch of crap. No girl willingly just goes for a walk in a mini dress at 2AM, and O’Reilly wasn’t using his forum to help girls avoid getting raped and murdered.

    As I understand the story, she was out there because her car got towed and the bad guy discovered her. She did not intend to be out there at 2AM without a car to get into. O’Reilly’s accusation of the victim was exposed when he called her stupid for getting her car towed. His defense of the attacker came when he said any predator would have gone after her because of the way she was dressed.

    I like a sexy girl as much as the next guy, but if I see one stranded at 2AM I don’t think, “I’m gonna rape and kill her because she’s got a mini skirt on.” I’m thinking, “I better help her before some effin pervert rapes and kills her.”! Nice work Zone.

  24. willier Says:

    Spud:

    I think you’re right when you say that both Olbermann and O’Reilly get things wrong from time to time. In fact, I’d say that O’Reilly makes at least as many mistakes. But there’s a huge difference. Many of O’Reilly’s mistakes are obvious situations where he innocently got his words crossed up—like Malmedy.

    Almost every mistake Olbermann makes on the air— like his misquotes of Rupert Murdoch, or Rudolph Guilian– is done in the process of sliming someone. The misquote has the affect of making his enemy look worse than he really is.

    As long as it makes O’Reilly look bad, I don’t think Keith cares whether it’s right or not.

  25. joeremi Says:

    You righties mystify me. It’s all about how KO is after Billo blah blah blah. The only commenter to address what O’Reilly said about the young girl defended it as “out of context.” If KO did the same thing I would crucify him.

  26. happyphilosopher Says:

    Ms. Augello is missing the point. No one is trying to damage her foundation; being associated with O’Reilly, who has made horrific statements on the air about a rape victim and a child abuse victim, and settled a sexual harassment claim out-of-court for big bucks and a secrecy clause, will damage her foundation! As a matter of fact, I would bet that if O’Reilly withdraws from speaking it would bring in donations from all over the place AND help to rehabilitate his image.

  27. Baloney. O’Reilly will only damage the foundation if nobody comes to the event. Short of that what O’Reilly does will have no bearing on the Foundation.

    But what does affect the foundation is a bunch of ideological yahoos running around blasting the Foundation for getting O’Reilly. If O’Reilly withdraws, like what happened two years ago in Naples (why are all these events in Florida?) because of Hornbeck, and the Foundation has to get someone else who may not bring in as many donations, then all the ideological yahoos will have accomplished is damaging a cause they hold dear out of ideological purity. I call that throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

  28. missy5537 Says:

    O’Reilly actually blamed a victim of rape? Can we have some specifics,please?

    And if O’Reilly’s presence at a fundraiser will help generate revenue, then let it happen. Why does KO ALWAYS feel that he has to interject himself into an event or story?

  29. No, he didn’t blame the victim. He issued the same sort of warnings that rape prevention counselors and websites make about putting yourself in risky situations. Whether he said it in the most compassionate way possible can be argued, because he was pretty steamed at the time over what happened to that woman. But the type of warnings he gave were of a piece with what I’ve heard counselors tell women and rape victims for years. Just like advising women/children/girls don’t hitchhike. If they do and bad results follow, it’s not the victim’s fault. But on the other hand, that doesn’t mean if you point out that hitchhiking makes you more of a target, that’s not blaming the victim. That’s using someone’s unwise behavior as an object lesson for others. If such warnings by example are deemed somehow not PC or compassionate, then the result will be more assaults, not fewer.

    KO’s interest in this is solely because it’s O’Reilly, who by sheerest coincidence happens to beat him to a pulp in the ratings every night. O’Reilly who had great success promoting Jessica’s Law, another thing Olby doesn’t like. Just as he blithely doctors O’Reilly’s words when it suits his purposes, here is obscures O’Reilly’s intent, convincing the gullible that O’Reilly was “blaming the victim”.

  30. happyphilosopher Says:

    icn2 –
    The event is close to sold out so there is no question of that. It’s a question of reputation in the future. Its a question of sending confusing and contradictory signals to the vitcims of rape, who are supposed to be the important people here, not Billo’s ego.

    And “Missy”, there is plenty of info online about what O’Reilly said. Try these:

    “These two girls come in from the suburbs and they get bombed, and their car is towed because they’re moronic girls and, you know, they don’t have a car. So they’re standing there in the middle of the night with no car. And then they separate because they’re drunk…

    “Now Moore, Jennifer Moore…She was 5-foot-2, 105 pounds, wearing a miniskirt and a halter top with a bare midriff… So every predator in the world is gonna pick that up at two in the morning. She’s walking by herself on the West Side Highway, and she gets picked up by a thug…

    And the thug takes her over to New Jersey in the cab and kills her and rapes her and does all these terrible things to her…” (Bill O’Reilly, The Radio Factor with Bill O’Reilly, 8/2/06)

    Go to YouTube and search Jennifer Moore Bill O’Reilly and you can hear some of it for yourself.

    “And the question is, why didn’t [11-year-old Shawn Hornbeck, kidnapped, held and raped for 4 years] escape when he could have?…The Stockholm syndrome thing, I don’t buy it…The situation here for this kid looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his old parents. He didn’t have to go to school. He could run around and do whatever he wanted…I think when it all comes down, what’s going to happen is, there was an element here that this kid liked about his circumstances.” (Bill O’Reilly, Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, 1/15/07)

  31. Whether he said it in the most compassionate way possible can be argued

    That’s the understatement of the year. It was positively tone deaf. If O’Reilly had man upped and admitted as much, it would have gone a long way to diffusing the situation (though not for the purely ideological O’Reilly haters who look for anything to use against O’Reilly because…well…it’s O’Reilly).

  32. joeremi Says:

    More crap. What was the point of telling the story; to warn women not to wear sexy clothes if they’re going to stupidly get their cars towed because sexual predators won’t be able to restrain themselves? Bull. He brought it up because he likes to talk about young chicks in sexy clothes, then explains it away by saying he’s against the idea while transparently expressing the allure by sympathizing with the attacker’s attraction to her. That’s pretty twisted.

  33. joeremi Says:

    Anybody apologizing for mistakes goes a long way with me. O’Reilly hasn’t done so because his perverted little brain doesn’t see a problem.

  34. I wonder how many who claim to know O’Reilly’s point in telling the story actually listened to the entire hour of radio? And how many are just reacting to the cherry-picked quotes selected by O’Reilly’s enemies.

  35. happyphilosopher Says:

    O’Reilly should not tackle such a sensitive issue if he can’t do it right. It sure sounded like blaming the victim to me; he even referred to Moore as “that” in the offhand way that certain types of men do (“phooooaaah, I’d like a bit of that!” for example). Clothing has nothing to do with it, in any case, except used as an excuse. Women in burkas get raped. Nuns in habits get raped. Men get raped. Children get raped.

    Show me the rape counsellor who would use the word “moronic” in relation to a rape victim. That speaks volumes. I taught women’s self defense / attack prevention workshops for years and liased with rape crisis centers so I know exactly how such advice needs to be approached, and its not by holding up some other woman’s tragedy and sayng “see, if she hadn’t done that she wouldn’t have been raped”.

    And how about that Hornbeck statement? That wasn’t just him “being steamed”. That was him being a blame-the-victim jerk. All O’Reilly is interested in is generating the outrage that keeps his audience emotionally hooked on him. Hell of a way to get ratings. It doesn’t say much for his regular audiece.

  36. happyphilosopher Says:

    audience.

  37. joeremi Says:

    J$, HP gave an excellent response so I won’t rehash it. I have a bone to pick with the “cherry picking “defense though. You don’t have to hear a full hour of radio to “understand” full and complete sentences from the program. HP quoted entire paragraphs of descriptions of the girl’s height, weight, skirt, top and “bare midriff”. This after calling her “moronic”. Neither you nor Zoned have yet to produce some other part of the conversation that changes the rather obvious prurient and unacceptable direction of his comments.

    Bill O’Reilly blamed the victim for being hot and sympathized with the “thug” for picking up on “that”. You need to seriously consider the road you’re going down here. This is way beyond cable-news-anchor beefs. This girl was raped and murdered for going out with her friends and ending up buzzed and carless. You can criticize her values and choices under normal circumstances if you want, but this is murder. She didn’t do anything to deserve that.

  38. happyphilosopher Says:

    I posted an url to the petition asking the foundation to replace O’Reilly as their speaker but It apparently has to wait for moderation because its a link. So here is another one which, in turn, links to the petition:

    wwwDOTonemorevoiceDOTnet

    replace the DOT with real dots.

  39. I haven’t left a comment at ICN in two months, but I feel compelled to in this case. After Olbermann’s initial attack (via Think Progress and Media Matters) on Monday night, I downloaded the August 2, 2006, “Radio Factor” and then saved a separate MP3 of the hour that featured the out-of-context quote. Here is that hour:
    http://www.mediafire.com/?ouzzyymoz2j

    Also, I called the Alexa Foundation this morning to offer my support. Whoever I spoke to on the phone, they were complimentary of the support from J$ and said somebody left a comment over there. They also thanked me for my support and for the support they received from others. They told me that Tuesday yielded the worst of the calls. I told them that I found it said that people blinded by ideological hatred are trying to take them down. After I got off the phone, I went to their website and made a donation.
    Please call or e-mail the It Happened to Alexa Foundation, like I did this morning, and offer your support. Thank you very much.

  40. Joe, I’ll take from your response that no, you didn’t hear the entire discussion, and yes, you relied on the quotes cherry-picked by O’Reilly’s enemies. I guess that explains your notion that Bill “blamed the victim” or was “sympathetic” to the killer. It’s always easier to ascribe motives (preferably evil ones) when doing so without all the facts.

    I understand that tonight Olbermann pounded his campaign against O’Reilly and Alexa yet again. I’m sure that pleases you, but I suspect the Alexa people don’t quite see it that way.

  41. I can’t wait for my comment to by added out of moderation. So, let me try again:
    I haven’t left a comment at ICN in two months, but I feel compelled to in this case. After Olbermann’s initial attack (via Think Progress and Media Matters) on Monday night, I downloaded the August 2, 2006, “Radio Factor” and then saved a separate MP3 of the hour that featured the out-of-context quote. Here is that hour (replace what’s in CAPS with the characters “/” “.” “?” they represent):
    wwwDOTmediafireDOTcomSLASHQUESTIONMARKouzzyymoz2j

    Also, I called the Alexa Foundation this morning to offer my support. Whoever I spoke to on the phone, they were complimentary of the support from J$ and said somebody left a comment over there. They also thanked me for my support and for the support they received from others. They told me that Tuesday yielded the worst of the calls. I told them that I found it said that people blinded by ideological hatred are trying to take them down. After I got off the phone, I went to their website and made a donation.
    Please call or e-mail the It Happened to Alexa Foundation, like I did this morning, and offer your support. Thank you very much.

  42. thedreadedpatrick Says:

    cvvbbbb

  43. thedreadedpatrick Says:

    Johnny And Little Mikec spin it anyway you want, you know what O’Reilly said, you are lying about it ,as usual. While I am all for the charity, you both are a couple of hiprocrites standing up for what that man or Mikec idol says. But as a couple of conservatives, it just figures.

  44. joeremi Says:

    So you guys with full transcripts of the hour will enlighten us to the context of his remarks, right? I don’t have time to listen right now, but I will be fascinated to learn how the paragraphs HP quoted will suddenly sound completely different.

  45. thedreadedpatrick Says:

    You know what Dollar and Mikec the more I think about and read what you said ,you both are just scum, this cherry pick stuff and now you are both hiding behind the charity.
    Well what comes around goes around and someday when you are put in a situation that cannot be helped and someone says you deserved it maybe and only maybe you will realize how it feels but until them both of you shut the hell up.

  46. joeremi Says:

    Agreed with Patrick, I had the same reaction. The longer I thought about it, the more reprehensible it seemed. J$, I told you to consider where you were headed with this, but you blindly rambled on about “context”, as if there’s a reasonable explanation for picking on the girl that died. She was raped, which means she had time to worry about what he would do when he was done. Then he did what she feared. Did he threaten her first? Did he make her beg for her life? You really should think about that stuff before babbling about cherry picking and context.

  47. elmonica Says:

    Hey MikeC,

    Based on your suggestion I called Alexxa foundation and told them they shouldn’t allow a documented sexual harasser with a history of sexist comments to speak at their fundraiser. I told them if they allow BO to speak, they are doing so for unprincipled reasons.

  48. Joe, you agree with Patrick? That I’m lying about it? Based on what, your expertise on rape prosecutions and rape prevention? Your analysis of everything O’Reilly said?

    If you want to keep insisting that he was “picking on” the victim then fine. Do so. But I didn’t accuse you of lying, or give a thumbs up to someone who did. All I did is ask if you listened to the entire discussion, or only the parts selected by people who want to paint O’Reilly in the worst possible light. If you think that constitutes “babbling” then let it be as you say.

  49. The vicious attacks on me are a risk I’m willing to take.

  50. thedreadedpatrick Says:

    Yes Johnny, not even you the master of spin can get out of this one, O’Reilly said, you know it and you are a scum for supporting him, but that what conservatives lie and divert. Thank god for Keith Olbermann

  51. thedreadedpatrick Says:

    No Mikec its not an attack, its the truth, the man you worship is a scumbag, just like the crap he pulled with Sean Hornbeck, he deserved it too right. Just like you will deserve when something unthinkable happens to you. Cry and whine all you want, the truth hurts doesn’t it?

  52. And just like the guy I’m a fan of, I’m being branded a conservative when I’m not. (dismissively): Yes, I know: I’m a conservative, don’t lie, crush on [Bill], go back to playing Wii and listening to crappy music, get a life, blah blah blah.

  53. thedreadedpatrick Says:

    Talk down to me all you want boy, you know its all true. You are a conservative, why? Fox News, Billo, Johnny Dollar (conservative, Conservative, conservative)

  54. thedreadedpatrick Says:

    Also little Mikec, my beef is not with you anymore, I have proven you to be a liar, that is why you ran tail between you legs out of every site I questioned you at.
    My next beef is with your girlfriend Ashley, that Boy/girl is the biggest asskisser I have seen and she needs to stop his condescending drivel.

  55. The man who committed the crime is the one at fault. Anyone who’s listened to O’Reilly only a few times would know with certainty that he always places the blame squarely with the person who committed the crime, to the point of getting red-faced steamed about it.

    We all know that women who are out driving alone on dark, deserted streets at a time of night when the prowlers are usually out prowling are at a greater risk of being attacked. It may not be right, it may not be fair, but it is reality and I’ve told my daughters this very thing many times.

    You can argue that O’Reilly could have said it better, but you know what he meant. If you think he’s a jerk, I agree… but he’s a jerk with a kind heart. If you think he was blaming the victim then you’re either being dishonest with yourself or you’re ignorant.

  56. thedreadedpatrick Says:

    Dollar, no comeback, I hear crickets, once again all go, no show Conservative Johnny Dollar, proven to be a liar again. Shocker!!!!!!

  57. gettingpwned Says:

    i cant believe i read 90% of this thread…

    joe, you’re right. no one has answered your question about how listening to an hour of radio changes the context of this.

    and “J$” you need to be paid by fox for PR. you’re the last person anyone should listen to in a critical evaluation of fox.

    look, should o’reilly have apologized? yes.
    will he? no, because olbermann would get his jollies from it and o’reilly’s ego is too big to let that happen.

    will o’reilly’s support draw money for the foundation? yes. is olbermann really helping matters here? probably not. he could take away money from the org, but is the org all about money or maybe a little something more than that?

    bringing in someone who had an alleged multi-million dollar sexual harassment lawsuit settlement to speak on behalf of women probably isn’t the best idea.

    there’s enough blame to go around all over.

  58. There’s also nothing wrong with Keith Olbermann picking fights with Bill O’Reilly. They’re in competition and that’s what competing sides do. But for a subject matter like this, the high road would have been to give O’Reilly the benefit… there’ll surely be something else to fight about.

  59. Well, I know when I’m pwned. You guys win. Damn you’re good. 8)
    If you’ll excuse, I’m going to run tail.

  60. Ok, people. You’re getting way to heated and way too personal. Dial it back or I’ll dial it back for you by shutting the thread down. I don’t want to but you have to show some restraint here.

    This goes for everybody.

  61. missy5537 Says:

    OK, O’Reilly was crass in his rehash of what happened. He should have been more sensitive. Fine.

    But did it ever occur to you whiners that maybe O’Reilly was correct in his assessment, and that his crass speech MAY HAVE PREVENTED OTHERS FROM SUFFERING THE SAME FATE?

    When I was younger, I behaved in certain ways I certainly shouldn’t have, and suffered many adverse consequences as a result. And being a young adult, I did many stupid things, often ignoring the advice of my parents (as many do at that age). So in retrospect, I wish I did know of someone with a national presence who would have spoken something that would have made me behave in a less risky manner than I did at the time.

    I’d much rather have been put off my “over the top” language than to have suffered the consequences of my bad behavior. Wouldn’t you liberals agree? Or are you really that worried about being offended? As your Dear Leader states, “just words…”.

    And anyone who thinks O’Reilly is not worthy of addressing a victim’s rights group is obviously unaware of all the work he’s done to promote Jessica’s Law.

  62. joeremi Says:

    Sorry J$, I should have specified: I’m not agreeing you’re a liar, I’m agreeing you’re scum for continuing to insist O’Reilly had some other context for calling the young lady a moron and graphically describing her height, weight, clothes and bare midriff for any other reason than to spell out for his listeners how totaly fine she was and how totally stupid she was and now she’s dead.

    Let me ask you something. Since you know the full context of the comments, tell me why he was discussing the topic. Was it to warn girls that are 5′-2″, 105 lbs. with a short skirt, halter top and bare midriff not to be morons and get drunk and get their car towed and separate from their friends and get raped and murdered because any predator would go after that? The only way to take that out of context would be for Bill to have started with “Some idiot said…”

    Let’s try an experiment. You are scum. Now I can claim that was taken out of context because you didn’t read all my comments in this thread. Now go back through my comments. “You are scum” is pretty hard to take out of context unless I said earlier that “you da man.”

    What Bill said was disgusting. The “moronic” statement. The graphic description of her appearance (which sounded like a Penthouse letter). The reason I don’t care about your stupid context is that there is no way to contextualize his offensive comments into a more benign statement. The poor girl died because there was an evil bastard nearby when her car got towed. It’s his fault.

  63. missy5537 Says:

    Correction to 4th parageaph, above: I’d much rather have been put off BY (not “my”) “over the top” language…

  64. joeremi Says:

    OK Spud. My last comment was typed before I saw yours. I’ve clearly had my say. See ya.

  65. bigred08 Says:

    Wow. I don’t check the site for a few hours and all hell breaks loose.

    Here’s the bottom line: O’Reilly lets his mouth get the better of him sometimes and flies off the handle and says stupid things. This was one of them.

    But, he’s trying to do a good thing and raise money for a good cause.

    Olbermann doesn’t give a crap about the charity and just cares about burying O’Reilly.

    Olbermann has never once advocated for anything except hating Bush, O’Reilly & all Republicans, while praising the Democrats. If he really cared, he would send a large donation to a women’s rape shelter.

  66. I agree with BigRed on everything except for that last paragraph.

  67. joeremi Says:

    There you go Red! There’s a way to not let O’Reilly off the hook for his comments while still praising him for his efforts for crime victims and sticking it to KO for overdoing his attacks when he has no victim-support record to speak of…and Red just did it. We could’ve used you about 60 comments ago.

  68. laural1 Says:

    “Wow. I don’t check the site for a few hours and all hell breaks loose.
    Here’s the bottom line: O’Reilly lets his mouth get the better of him sometimes and flies off the handle and says stupid things. This was one of them.”

    Perfect. And then, he won’t apologize because, God forbid, that might be seen as responding to the O’Reilly-haters. Nevermind that there are reasonable people(like myself) who would just see it as the decent thing to do. We all shoot off our mouths every now and then and say something unfortunate, if not worse. I’m sorry goes a long way, and the hell with how the haters react.

  69. Betcha Olbermann would donate the money lost if BO pulls out or is canceled by the Alexa org.
    It won’t happen ’cause BO has a friend on the board at the Alexa.

  70. Hey J$, I went a little far with the scum thing. I don’t think you’re scum, I just think you got a little blinded by the fact it involved KO, and you are aware of Bill’s support of a victim’s group. IMO his support doesn’t change what he did, but you may think admitting he was wrong here takes away from what he has done for victims. I don’t think it does. I despise what he did, and appreciate the other good things he has done. If that seems contradictory, well, sometimes I say stupid things which I hope doesn’t change the good I have done, either.

  71. Heated disagreements with sometimes childish name-calling among people who actually care deeply about things is far preferable to having boring discussions with dimwit folks who don’t give a rat’s bum about anything.

    Joe, you get an “atta boy” for every good thing you’ve done and an “aw shit” for every bad thing. Unfortunately, one “aw shit” cancels out all the “atta boy”s.

  72. Why are we talking about what O’Reilly said ON THE RADIO 2 1/2 friggin’ years ago?

    Because Olbermann will do anything to try and harm O’Reilly, regardless of who or what else gets damaged.

    The O’Reilly haters, livid and full of outrage at the idea of the object of their hatred speaking at a fund raiser for a rape victim’s support group, with sanctimony at full throttle, engage in harrassment, false accusations, innuendo and intimidation in the finest tradition of a shakedown.

    Then, with unmitigated gall, they bitch because the foundation refuses to submit, or even respond, to their demands.

  73. It’s not a false accusation. What O’Reilly said 2 1/2 years ago was a severe affront to that girl’s family and he owes them – and her – an apology. He blamed her for her death. It’s not right.

  74. I wasn’t talking about what O’Reilly said. I was talking about what the O’Reilly haters are doing to and saying about the “It Happened to Alexa Foundation.”

    If O’Reilly had “blamed her for her death,” I’d be screaming at the top of my lungs. What I won’t do is presume that I know what someone was thinking 2 1/2 years ago, unless, of course, he actually said, “She was asking for it,” or “She’s to blame, it’s her fault.”

    Evidently, that is something you will do.

  75. I don’t care what “O’Reilly haters” are saying about his efforts for Alexa. I believe his motives are pure for that organization. I’m arguing that there is no debate about that particular broadcast. What he said translates as “she is at fault”. There is no other context for his offensive statements. I said before that you can separate his mistake from other good works. What I won’t tolerate is redefining his statements to support his other good works. He defamed a murder victim and it is wrong.

  76. So, you don’t care about coordinated efforts to intimidate and damage a fine organazation that does good works, but you argue “that there is no debate about that particular broadcast,” and what you “won’t tolerate is redefining his statements…”

    It must be nice to be so certain about your opinion “that there is no debate about that particular broadcast,” even though you “don’t have time to listen right now,…”

    Furthermore, your intolerance for, not redifining, but being unwilling to presume another’s thoughts and therefor, failing to concur with your definition, not necessarily because it’s wrong, but because it is a presumptuous judgment of another human being.

    Someone, much wiser than me, said:

    Judge not, that ye be not judged.

    For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

    And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

    Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

    Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

  77. happyphilosopher Says:

    “Wouldn’t you liberals agree? ”

    What is this?! This is not a matter of left and right (the ppissing contest between Olbermann and O’Reilly notwithstanding)- it is a matter of right and wrong.

    I see what is going on here. I can see that there are people here who are politicizing this issue to their own ends every bit as much as Olbermann is using it for his or O’Reilly is using it for HIS. I suspect you care about your rightwing agenda far more than you care about the substantive issue.

  78. happyphilosopher Says:

    “coordinated efforts to intimidate and damage a fine organazation”

    This statement looks more like part of coordinated efforts at spin to me. Apparently this is going to be the meme to be spread among those who woud defend Bill O’Reilly at all costs. The idea that anyone is tyring to harm the ALexa foundation is just ludicrous.

  79. chipsohio Says:

    Boy, you miss one day on the site & all hell breaks loose.

    1) Did BOR make misstatements with regards to the rape victim & Shawn Hornbeck…Absolutely. Perhaps this is BOR’s method of making amends.

    2) Has KO inflamed the left wing loonies & caused harm to this charitable foundation. …Absolutely. Because if the people running the event have to take valuable time to answer phones & respond to this nonsense from the liberal nutjobs harassing them in an effort pull BOR from speaking. This effort causes the Alexa Foundtation to lose focus & not put every effort into making the event the focus, not the speaker.

    People, time = money & in this case perhaps lost money if just one person doesn’t show up for the event because of comments made by KO.

    Happy, when KO rants against BOR speaking at this organization what do you think people on the far left are going to do? They contact the organization & try to have the speaker pulled. If that were to happen, what do you think the effect would be on the event???

    KO’s motive is purely to go after BOR…to hell with a charitable event. KO is truly scum.

    People, BOR is not inncoent with his comments…however I have much more respect for someone who is willing to donate his time & money than for a piece of garbage like KO whose only motive is to denegrate a person & a charitable event for ratings.

    The focus should be on the event not the speaker

  80. Come on Al, leave the profanity out of this. You know better…

  81. bigred08 Says:

    Bottom line….the attacks on the charity are only going to hurt a good cause.

    QUIT CALLING THEM COMPLAINING!! As someone who works in non-profit, and as was illustrated by the Alexa Foundation exec. director, they HAVE ONE FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE. They’ve got much better things to do with their time than to answer calls from Olbermann lunatics.

    Take the war with O’Reilly elsewhere.

  82. happyphilosopher Says:

    I for one am not an “Olbermann lunatic”. I don’t even normally watch the guy. I have contacted the Foundatiino with a polite email and signed the petition to make my opinion known.

    There are rape victims seriously upset by the thought that O’Reilly is going to speak at this luncheon. They feel betrayed. But you’re not really interested in them or their feelings, are you?

  83. bigred08 Says:

    Good grief. You people are really pathetic.

    Further proof that no good deed goes unpunished.

    Are you interested in the feelings and needs of those served by the Alexa Foundation? Apparently not.

    If you were, you wouldn’t be bothering them with this bull crap.

  84. joeremi Says:

    In response to ongrog waving his Bible at me, I’m going to say it again. HP printed all of the paragraphs of what O’Reilly said on the radio. You continue to claim it was taken out of context, which is impossible unless Bill also at some point retracted his own statements. Trying to justify his statements as a way of supporting victims and victims’ organizations is disingenuous. I don’t care about the O’Reilly-KO battle and I’m not interested in calling Alexa. It’s their organization and none of my business. I do care that people would listen to O’Reilly call a dead girl a “moron” and describe her appearance in a creepily sexual way and not have a problem with it.

    Ongrog, you missed the point of the Bible quotes. It is intended to prevent prejudice and provide guidance for forgiveness. It is not intended to provide escape for wrongdoing. By your standard, there would be no courts prosecuting crime. I’ve heard that quote misused a thousand times. Your interpretation doesn’t hold up.

  85. happyphilosopher, you don’t seem very happy….nor very philosphical:

    “coordinated efforts to intimidate and damage a fine organazation”

    This statement looks more like part of coordinated efforts at spin to me. Apparently this is going to be the meme to be spread among those who woud defend Bill O’Reilly at all costs. The idea that anyone is tyring to harm the ALexa foundation is just ludicrous.
    =-=
    Please point out where I defended O’Reilly, at any time, at any place, at any cost.

    ludicrous-

    1 : amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity
    2 : meriting derisive laughter or scorn as absurdly inept, false, or foolish

    News Alert! Saying it does not make it so.

    I’ll make an assumption here, and that is I doubt the “It Happened to Alexa Foundation” finds anything “laughable” about what has been taking place this week since Olbermann’s latest O’Reilly attack was broadcast and the O’Reilly haters sprang into action.

    1. O’Reilly agrees to speak at a charitable fund raiser for no charge.
    2. O’Reilly plugs the foundation and the event on his program.
    3. Olbermann plugs O’Reilly (Bang!).
    4. An online petition requesting the foundation withdraw its invitation for O’Reilly to speak at their fund raiser is begun (BTW, just who are the “Concerned Citizens Against Sexual Violence” and where have they been prior to March 2009?).
    5. E-mails and phone calls begin arriving at the foundation expressing outrage at the O’Reilly invitation.
    6. The foundation refuses to withdraw the invite.
    7. O’Reilly promos the event again.
    6. Olbermann plugs O’Reilly (again) and the foundation (Bang! Bang!).
    7. A fusillade of e-mails and phone calls are fired at the foundation for failing to comply with the withdraw the invite request.
    6. O’Reilly, again, promotes the foundation and the fund raising event.
    7. Olbermann plugs O’Reilly, the foundation and the victim’s rights attorney that represented Alexa (Bang! Bang! Bang!).
    8. The outrage against the foundation spreads via the internet.

    To be continued…..

  86. happyphilosopher Says:

    joeremi, you rock.

    bigred08, you don’t. The whole point is that O’Reilly doesn’t really care about rape survivors or he would never have made those statements. What HE said was bullcrap.

    If you want read about how rape survivors and those who love thme really feel, go over to the petition site, and read some of the comments. You, Johnny Dollar and Mike Chimeri appear to care more about O’Reilly than the people who are REALLY affected by this: the rape survivors.

    the event is almost sold out. If they replace the speaker no one will want to be seen asking for their money back from a charity. They will not lose out; on the contrary, they will gain a great deal of respect and you can bet the contributions will flow in as a result of them admitting they made a mistake.

    Better yet, O’Reilly could apologize unreservedly to those he hurt with his thoughtless remarks, on both his shows. Then he could go ahead and speak, plus show that he really gives damn about ending the blame-the-victim culture.

    Pigs might fly, too.

    And to all of you who are accusing people who object to O’Reilly’s participation as “far left”: stop playing politics with this issue. Shame on you.

  87. Wow! joe, what have you been smokin’?

    You think I waved my Bible at you.
    You believe I claim O’Reilly’s words were taken out of context.
    You say I’m “Trying to justify his statements”
    You believe because of the above, even though none of it is true, I’m being disingenuous.
    Although I offerred no interpretation of the quote, you seem to be able to discern what is in my heart, and subsequently, to know how I interpret the passage; i.e., that it is “intended to provide escape for wrongdoing.”

    0 for 5

  88. bigred08 Says:

    HP, I’ll say it again. O’Reilly’s comment was STUPID.

    Yours are far beyond that. “O’Reilly doesn’t really care about rape survivors or he would never have made those statements.”

    HE’S DOING A FUNDRAISER FOR RAPE VICTIMS and promoting the cause on his widely watched show. How the hell do you surmise from that that he doesn’t care??

    People like you are wasting the charity’s important time and effort with your nonsense. The shame should lie on you, Olbermann and his ilk.

  89. Ongrog, now you’re claiming you didn’t defend O’Reilly’s remarks? What’s the point of arguing with my certainty about said remarks if not to defend them? His remarks either placed blame on the victim or they didn’t. Which is it?

    Your reason for the Bible quotes was clear. You used them to imply I have no right to pass judgment on the despicable things O’Reilly said. That quote is directed at people who carry a holier-than-thou attitude towards those they believe to be “in sin” and treat them badly. It has nothing to do with addressing a bad action…liking picking on a dead girl.

    HP, Mike C. retracted his defense of O’Reilly’s remarks last night. Let’s give the guy credit for respecting the victim over his own ideology. This is not an ideological debate.

  90. “Like,” not “liking.”

  91. chipsohio Says:

    For all of those people who don’t believe that O’Reilly should speak at this event…how about all of you donate your money to the Alexas Foundation to make up the potential money lost by this worthwile organization.

    Did O’Reilly misspeak…Absolutely.

    Has Olberman acted like a complete f***ing jackass by talking about this on his program….Absolutely.

    Spud, I’m sorry about swearing but it really pisses me off when the only people who get hurt if O’Reilly doesn’t show up is the organization itself. BOR is donating his time & energy for a worthwhile charity and there are some people who only wish to hurt the people he’s assisting.

    So to all of you who wish to prevent O’Reilly from appearing…”man/women up” & donate a month’s salary to the Alexa Foundation. If not, shut the Hell Up.

  92. ongrog Says:

    March 5, 2009 at 11:01 pm
    Why are we talking about what O’Reilly said ON THE RADIO 2 1/2 friggin’ years ago?
    =-=
    ongrog Says:

    March 5, 2009 at 11:18 pm
    I wasn’t talking about what O’Reilly said. I was talking about what the O’Reilly haters are doing to and saying about the “It Happened to Alexa Foundation.”
    =-=
    ongrog Says:

    March 6, 2009 at 12:24 am

    It must be nice to be so certain about your opinion “that there is no debate about that particular broadcast,” even though you “don’t have time to listen right now,…”

    Furthermore, your intolerance for, not redifining, but being unwilling to presume another’s thoughts and therefor, failing to concur with your definition, not necessarily because it’s wrong, but because it is a presumptuous judgment of another human being.

    =-=

    joe,

    You’re broken record is becoming tiring.

    I’m not arguing with your certainty, I’m simply pointing it out. You are arguing with my unwillingness to presume what someone else was thinking 2 1/2 years ago. You are arguing with my failure to concur with your opinion, even though I clearly stated my reason for not concurring with your definition was “not necessarily because it’s wrong, but because it is a presumptuous judgment of another human being.”

    Your, “Your reason for the Bible quotes was clear. You used them to imply I have no right to pass judgment on the despicable things O’Reilly said,” is, at best, a totally mistaken perspective, and at worst, the use of a lie to call me a liar.

    Finally, for outstanding achievement in convoluted strawman logic, your, “It has nothing to do with addressing a bad action…liking picking on a dead girl,” is the proud recipiant of ‘The Archie Bunker Award.’

    All by yourself, you created what you say is my interpretaion of the Bible passage, and then, you tell me my interpretation, which you created, is wrong.

    Gotta hand it to ya’ joe, you’re good.

  93. >Mike C. retracted his defense of O’Reilly’s remarks last night.<
    I did, Joe? When did I do that?

  94. bigred08 Says:

    “The idea that anyone is tyring to harm the ALexa foundation is just ludicrous.”

    HP & any others petitioning, calling, bothering this charity need to think long and hard about what they’re trying to accomplish.

    Whether or not it’s your GOAL to harm the foundation, that’s EXACTLY what you’re doing.

  95. thedreadedpatrick Says:

    Well little Mikec you should have, and your anal argument for Billo was sad, just like you, now take yourself back to your useless website and let the adults talk.

  96. joeremi Says:

    Sorry Mike. I thought “being pwned” meant you backed off.

    Ongrog, yes I am good. I’m also right. Believe it or not, you actually CAN determine a man’s thoughts by the words he uses. Go back over mine and I’m sure you’ll have no problem determining my thoughts on this topic. Now answer the question.

  97. I meant I gave up commenting, Joe. I’m going to resume that right now. Take care and sorry for the mix-up.

  98. Now answer the question.-joeremi

    Sir, yes Sir!
    =-=

    Ongrog, now you’re claiming you didn’t defend O’Reilly’s remarks?

    [I didn’t defend O’Reilly’s remarks. Never have, never will. If you can supply an example of me doing so, I will gladly commit internet seppuku.]

    What’s the point of arguing with my certainty about said remarks if not to defend them?

    [Again, I did not argue with your certainty, I simply pointed it out. My point was, “It must be nice to be so certain about your opinion “that there is no debate about that particular broadcast,” even though you “don’t have time to listen right now,…”

    His remarks either placed blame on the victim or they didn’t.

    [If you say so.]

    Which is it?

    [I don’t presume to know.]

  99. joeremi Says:

    I give up. 99 comments and we still don’t have one person who can tell me how O’Reilly’s remarks don’t constitute victim-bashing. The closest we’ve come is he “misspoke.” Bull. I called J$ scum. Later on I pulled back because I didn’t think it was fair to call him that. Did I misspeak? Of course not. I cooled down and changed my mind. If O’Reilly has cooled down and changed his mind about the boy having fun or the girl being a moron and looking too fine at 2AM, I haven’t heard about it.

    As far as being unable to determine what a man means by the words he uses, is anybody here having problems knowing what KO thinks?

  100. chipsohio Says:

    Joe:

    You & I have had respectful conversations & even though we’ve gone back & forth…it’s been respectful.

    Let me state a few things:

    1) BOR did misspeak on his show about rape victims.

    2) Why does KO feel the need to “go after” BOR for speaking at a charity event? This is purely cheap & offensive means by someone who does not seem to care about the people that BOR is trying to support. Can you or anyone provide me one instance where BOR has criticized KO for speaking at a CHARITY event.

    3) The only people who may get hurt are the victims of rape @ the Alexa foundation.

    4) People signed up for the event to hear BOR speak. Like him or not, he’s performing a good public service for charity.

    5) I’ve read that you have Asperger’s Syndrome. My son has it as well & I spend much time “trying” to be the best parent I can be. If the charity group(s), I support had a speaker I “disagreed” with I would still be grateful for the time he/she is providing for that charity.

    Shouldn’t the focus be on people BOR is trying to assist & not on the “wingnuts” who are trying to keep him from speaking, thus hurting the charity. Because if BOR does not speak, it will hurt the charity & the victims he’s trying to support.

    Perhaps, this is BOR’s way of making amends.

  101. joe,

    See johnnydollar Says:

    March 5, 2009 at 5:07 pm

  102. bigred08 Says:

    “your anal argument for Billo was sad, just like you, now take yourself back to your useless website and let the adults talk.”

    Patrick, you’re hilarious.

    Here’s your numerous examples of “adult” namecalling and comments:

    scum, scumbag, boy, liar, asskisser, hiprocrites (your spelling)

    “You will deserve it when something unthinkable happens to you.”

    “Thank god (again, your spelling) for Keith Olbermann”

    No, thank you patrick, for being so enlightened and showing us how to act like a mature adult.

  103. joeremi Says:

    Chip, you may be confusing my position with some of the others here. I have said I think KO overdid it, I don’t recommend contacting Alexa, have no position on their inclusion of him, and respect O’Reilly’s work for victim’s rights.

    My problem is specifically with his history of making creepy comments that imply some level of blame for the victim. My problem with calling it “misspeak” is that his defenders are the only ones using that word. O’Reilly has never made an attempt to support or redefine his comments, which leaves taking them at face value the only option available.

    Now we have Rush Limbaugh saying that the Obama health care initiative will be called The Ted Kennedy Memorial Health Care Plan. I’m waiting for the righties to tell me I can’t presume what he really meant and that it wasn’t a crack about a man with cancer. Sorry, some words say only one thing and you don’t have to be a psychologist to decipher them.

  104. “icn2 Says:
    March 6, 2009 at 6:55 am

    Come on Al, leave the profanity out of this. You know better…”

    Ummm… Huh?

  105. “The Ted Kennedy Memorial Health Care Plan”. Limbaugh really said that?

    That’s hilarious!

  106. chipsohio Says:

    Joe:

    Thanks for your clarification. Again, I use the term “misspeak” because I haven’t heard/seen BOR’s comments “in context”. Sorry, that’s the best I can do. It’d be me like looking up “poor” comments/incidents made by KO from the past & using them.

    What infuriates me is to have KO attempt to harm a charity (By talking about BOR speaking at this event, it does hurt the charity).

    Joe, I’m not saying you are in support of KO. However, can ANYONE in this thread provide me with one instance where BOR has attacked KO for supporting a CHARITY?

  107. joeremi Says:

    Actually, KO is attacking the charity for supporting O’Reilly. Just sayin’.

  108. chipsohio Says:

    Joe:

    You just made my point. Why go after a charity for having BOR speak. Charities need high profile speakers to be effective fund raisers. Just goes with the territory.

    KO’s insistence on attacking the charity for having BOR speak makes him look like & be an ass.

    Again, this question is for anyone…Can anyone tell me when BOR has attacked KO for supporting a charity??? I’m still waiting.

  109. […] In Depth: Olbermann vs. O’Reilly/It happened to Alexa Foundation… If you’ve been following Countdown the past few days, you’ll know that Keith Olbermann has been on a tear […] […]

  110. happyphilosopher Says:

    Can anyone tell me when KO called a rape/murder victim “moronic” and claimed that a victim of abduction and repeated sexual abuse was happy with his circumstances?

    The reason I came here just now, though, was to post this for Johnny “I used to be a prosecutor” Dollar. This is a comment that just appeared on the petition linked to from wwwDOTonemorevoiceDOTnet:

    # 695:
    3:44 pm PST, Mar 6, RS, California
    As a Prosecutor who has prosecuted sexual assault and murder crimes including a rape-murder death penalty case I can’t think of a more inappropriate choice to speak to an organization that supports crime victims than Bill O’Reilly. He is part of the arrrogant blame the victim culture that exists within the fringe element of the political landscape. The only people who make outrageous comments such as O’Reilly are on the outside fringes of American political ideology.The far left blames anyone but the criminal to justify lenient treatment and the far right espouses puritanical extremism that scorns victims for their so-called provocative attire or behavior. O’Reilly is not a supporter of victims rights and his speaking engagement should be cancelled.

  111. misspoupou Says:

    I listened to the entire hour in question a few days ago and in my opinion the meaning given to the quote and then elaborated upon by those who have never heard the source material is completely wrong.

    First, the over riding theme of that hour broadcast were the dangers of drinking to excess and the harm it can do to individuals, their families and society as a whole. To illustrate this he used the example of Mel Gibson and the repulsive anti jewish tirade and the young woman who was brutally raped and murdered. The only common factor was that both were very drunk.

    The discussion about Jessica was how she was so young, accomplished and on the threshold of the rest of her life, He described her and related how she and a friend had driven into NY to go club hopping. They left at about 2 o’clock to go home. They both were very drunk. They found that their car was gone. Somehow they got separated, probably b/c they were so drunk they were not rational.

    At that point BOR described her: her age; her small stature; her inebriated condition; her location, a deserted street in NYC at 2 AM; her dress, which mini and halter.

    At that point he used the word “that”. He did NOT call hefr “that”. as I’ve seen over and over. I am going to reword itb/c I can’t remember an entire segment verbatim but this is the meaning and
    intent of what he said. This young girl was the most helpless prey that the human animals in cities feed on. She had been young and foolish and paid an absolutely horrendous scum. He talked about the scum, who had his prostitute girlfriend with him.

    He brought up the problems that parents have when their children are still naive but old enough to make it difficult to be controlled and protected from such horrors,

    Less time was spent on Mel Gibson but the theme of excessive alcohol leaving people so exposed was carried on.

    I was struck by one point he made. That he was young, stupid and foolish too, as we all are at some time. He related he thought his parents weren’t too bright. Perhaps if some figure of authority other than family had given advice he might have taken it and made fewer mistakes.

    If you don’t believe me listen to the show. Mike C put a link here last night.

    If you don’t you will be deliberately ignoring the truth so you can continue with the witch hunt.

    Who is suffering from this egotistical ? The very small and unique IHTAF. I have seen people fuming b/c their Email wasn’t answered, they got the answering machine and no one has called back. They need lessons in manners and good pr. The staff is one full time and one part time person who are being deluged with all you concerned self righteous folk.

    Look what KO and his faithful followers have wrought. BOR hasn’t and won’t be hurt. KO is having a fine old time sticking pins in BOR. His followers are calling, blogging and Emailing the foundation.

    The foundation and the victims that they help are the losers in this even if BOR attends. Their ability to function has been stifled and if what I’ve read on blogs is true I hope they have cast iron ears to protect them from the charming and lovely public.

  112. joeremi Says:

    I’ll grant you the alcohol point. Where I diverge is the labeling “moronic” and the highly sexualized description of the girl. IMO that part bordered on sympathizing with the predator because…I mean…how could you resist. He may have been trying to send the message, “Parents, don’t let your kids put on mini skirts and go get drunk at clubs”, but his sexualizing of the victim, coupled with calling her names, sounded creepy and critical of the girl’s choices.

    Like I said before, under less tragic circumstances a discussion about pushing the envelope with booze, leading you to end up at the side of the road at 2AM in club clothes would not be inappropriate. In this case, the booze part was still appropriate. But O’Reilly crossed the line with the name calling and the lurid description of the girl. Whether he realized he was blaming her for her death or not, that’s what happened. I’ll grant a man a mistake if he owns up to it. Bill O’Reilly hasn’t said a word.

  113. misspoupou Says:

    joeremi Says:
    March 6, 2009 at 9:27 pm

    I gather from your reply that you still haven’t gone to the original source and are still basing your opinion on hearsay. I reach this conclusion b/c any rational person who heard the piece would never use terms such as “highly sexualized description of the girl. ” and then “lurid description of the girl.” As for “moronic” without a transcript I don’t recall. Under the circumstances that would be an accurate although not a gentle way to describe the young woman’s actions. However, there was nothing gentle about what happened to that poor girl.

    Even if everything (including moronic) you claim is true I don’t see how you can reach the conclusion you have unless you are still depending on cherry picked info and your idea of his comment being ‘highly sexuallzed and ‘lurid’ is absurd unless you don’t know the meaning of the words you so casually toss around.

    I notice that you also failed to address the fact that only IHTAF and the victims they help are suffering. KO is grinning like a jackass eating cactus and his faithful followers are in dog pack attack mode against one and 1/2 women working in an office.

    I still stand behind my original assessment that you are “deliberately ignoring the truth so you can continue with the witch hunt. “.

  114. “Moronic” and the description of the girl’s appearance are in the transcript HP printed. It has been explained that O’Reilly was railing against parents and a society that supports young girls dressing up, getting drunk and getting in trouble. As I have said, it’s a valid point and worth discussing. My problem is with the name calling and the weird spelling out of the young lady’s height, weight, skirt, halter top and “bare midriff.” As someone who confesses to having read a Penthouse Letter in my lifetime, I can tell you that’s exactly how you set up an erotic scene. There’s no other point to describing her in that sexual way other than to titillate and imply that she would have been less vulnerable if she wasn’t so good looking. That’s blaming the victim. He goes on to say that any predator would “go after that”, another implication that she brought it on. The reality is, if a sex criminal is attracted to a certain type of girl and he finds her alone, it doesn’t matter WHAT she’s wearing.

    I’m not denying that O’Reilly had a point about modern culture and the hazards it presents young women, but he moved to a different topic with the name calling and the creepy description of the girl’s appearance. I might have cut him more slack if he didn’t have a history of sexual harassment and victim blaming. Bill O’Reilly has an “interesting” relationship with sexual issues and should avoid the topic. Let me put it succinctly: He’s a dirty old man.

    Lay off me about Alexa. I’ve said several times I have no interest in contacting them or condemning them. I have also stated I think KO oversold this thing. I have meticulously stuck with my assertion that O’Reilly got creepy on the radio, and the only reason I broached the subject is that he has defenders here claiming he didn’t do what he did. Are we going to get to 200 comments before someone provides the context that provides another reason to call a dead girl a moron and describe her bare midriff other than to blame her for “bringing it on”?

  115. misspoupou Says:

    joeremi Says:

    I don’t know. I was kind of hoping for maybe 300. 🙂

    I do have a better understanding of your position although I still think that you are mistaken and hyperbolic. And though you protest that you are innocent of trying to/actually harming IHTAF you admit the man whose lead you are following is doing just that .”Actually, KO is attacking the charity for supporting O’Reilly. Just sayin’.”

    So, how do you justify your strong support and alliance with those who are doing what you are so anxious to distance yourself from.

    I do not and will never accept your characterization of ‘highly sexuallized and lurid desrciptions of the tragic young woman. I heard it and there was nothing of the sort. If I read it there would still be nothing of the sort b/c describing someone’s size and attire in a factual way can not and does not rise to that level. I can only assume that you literally don’t know the meanings of the words or that you are super sensitive in the style of the Victorians.

    Using “moron” or “moronic” is neither PC nor the nicest way to characterize her actions. However, the price that IHTAF and those they help (with the added advantage of getting more of the scum off the streets) b/c of the use of one word that had a better alternative is and has been very high.

    And why? So KO has a shiny new hook to gaffe BOR. Make no mistake that based on his lack of a history in championing any worthy cause his crusade against BOR is transparently just another one motivated by green eyed jealously.

  116. chipsohio Says:

    Very well said MissPouPou, Again I ask my question has BOR ever criticized a charity that KO was supporting?

    Based upon no replies from the extreme liberal peanut gallery, I guess the answer is no.

    KO’s only desire is to harm the charity…what a truly disgusting human being

  117. chips,

    I strongly disagree. KO’s only desire is to harm O’Reilly. He doesn’t care who or what else gets harmed in the fallout.

  118. misspoupou Says:

    Agreed.

    KO would would use a bazooka to go through Mother Theresa if that brought him to KO.

  119. chipsohio Says:

    ongrog,

    I must disagree with you. To go after BOR by attacking an “inncoent” charity is truly dispicable.

    Because he can’t challenge BOR by beating him in the ratings, he must attack him through a charity…a real class act (NOT).

    KO would attack the Pope, Mr. Rogers, & Barney (Dinosaur) to get to BOR. Hell, he’d probably go after his own mom to get to BOR.

  120. chips,

    Check it out: “KO’s only desire is to harm the charity…”

    Nope. If O’Reilly wasn’t his intended target, the charity would have been ignored. Because his purpose is to harm O’Reilly anyway he can, he’ll ignore any harm to the charity he may cause and justify it as, “This is war! In war, innocents suffer.” KO’s only desire is to deystroy his memesis.

    “…what a truly disgusting human being”

    Yep, you can say that again….and again…and again..and again.

  121. chipsohio Says:

    ongrog,

    After thinking about your replies, you’re right. KO truly doesn’t care about the charity & his only intention is to destroy BOR.

    Perhaps it’s time for us to go after KO & the best way is to go after his advertisers.

    I wonder how his advertisers would feel knowing that a program they support/sponsor was going after a charity that supports rape victims.

  122. misspoupou Says:

    Probably the same as they felt when he called the President of the United States the “Liar in Chief”; a “fascist”; a ‘war criminal”; a”war monger”; a “war profiteer etc.

    If that didn’t give them pause or cause them to try to exercise some control by pointing out they could withdraw their sponsorship I doubt they would give a small number of victims a second thought.

  123. chips,

    I’m more of a forgiving kind of guy as opposed to a vengeful one, but borrowing the words of Joseph N. Welch, when it comes to Olbermann, “I like to think I’m a gentleman, but your (Olbermann’s) forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me.”

    Neither am I inclined to “go after” anyone. I do believe exposing political bias and dishonesty in the media is a worthwhile endeavor. In Olbermann’s case, there is no shortage of people or web sites that expose his bias and dishonesty. His downfall, however, will be of his own making.

    There is one condition, above all others, that Keith Olbermann cannot tolerate, endure, deal with or handle in any manner. That condition is being irrelevant. He’s currently in the early stages of irrelevancy and his prognosis is not good. 🙂

    Besides, it’s Saturday night, time for some fun.

    Gonna keep on dancin’ to the
    rock and roll
    On Saturday night, Saturday night
    Dancin’ to the rhythm in our
    heart and soul
    On Saturday Night, Saturday night
    I just can’t wait,
    I got a date

    At the good ole rock and roll road
    show, I gotta go
    Saturday Night,
    Saturday Night
    Gonna rock it up, roll it up
    Do it all, have a ball,
    Saturday Night,
    Saturday Night
    It’s just a Saturday Night

    Gonna dance with my baby till the
    night is thru
    On Saturday Night, Saturday Night
    Tell her all the little things I’m
    gonna do
    On Saturday night, Saturday Night
    I love her so I’m gonna let her know
    Saturday Night,
    Saturday Night
    It’s just a Saturday Night

  124. chipsohio Says:

    Misspopou:

    There is one difference & that is sponsors do not want to be associated with someone who is harassing a charity that supports rape victims. Imagine the question(s) posed to them…”How can you as a company financially support a person/show who is against rape victims?” It’s the equivalent of how many times did you beat your wife…not a great position for a company to be placed.

    I’m not big on boycotts, etc… however when a charity is harmed that supports rape victims, KO has crossed the line. To be honest, this one hits too close to home for me not to get upset/outraged.

    Ongrog…nice Bay City Rollers reference. Exposing political bias is one thing…protecting a worthwhile charity is something else. I’m not a person who typically will ever go after a sponsor, however in this case I believe some letters to the head of their marketing/advertisement department(s) may cause them to reflect especially in today’s bad economy.

    If your a CEO of a company that sponsore/advertises on KO’s show do you really want to upset some women especially if a story is reported that KO is attacking a charity that supports rape victims.

    ogrog…enjoy your date. ;

  125. As I said in another life, I think the slimy, sanctimonious smears will backfire and actually help It Happened to Alexa Foundation in the form of exposure and donations.

  126. Well? Instead of discussing the hazards of a young woman being caught drunk and alone in the middle of the night, BOR decided it would be more helpful if he pointed out she was 5′-2″, 105 lbs. and wearing a mini skirt and halter top which exposed a bare midriff. That’s a description of a hottie he saw at the mall, not a murder victim. If he wasn’t implying that her clothing had something to do with the attack, why did he mention it?

    To all those who keep straying off topic with me, my criticism of BOR’s comments has nothing to do with the charity. I seriously doubt people are reading my comments, then calling Alexa. My beef is with the victim-blaming. As I said before, the girl got gaught alone by a sex criminal. Her attire wouldn’t have made a difference, and to imply it did accuses her of causing her own rape and murder. Got a different explanation? Let’s here it.

  127. It goes along with his compulsive need to run B-roll that’s reminiscent of PG-13 Girls Gone Wild, while tut-tutting the activity that’s supposedly taking place.

  128. Geez, don’t ya hate when you type “here” instead of “hear”?

  129. I hate it when total strangers think less of me. Kills the buzz.

  130. bigred08 Says:

    I hate it when I eat ice cream too fast and it gives me a headache.

  131. laural1 Says:

    We need a new thread before this turns into ‘Andy Rooney’s blog’ (she says, having once discussed chicken and soda).

  132. misspoupou Says:

    “To all those who keep straying off topic with me, my criticism of BOR’s comments has nothing to do with the charity. I seriously doubt people are reading my comments, then calling Alexa.”

    Yes, I have read all your comments. Whether you have spurred someone on to Email or phone the charity or not not (there is no way to know one way of the other) there are many who are targeting the foundation, In fact there has been a concerted effort on the part of some blue blogs and as an unintended consequence you may very well have.

    “Have you checked this out at J$P:

    http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/blog/itr258232261.html

    Go through the pertinent parts and use the links to see what, as a practical matter, the crazies out there are doing to the foundation.

    That is an accurate description using ordinary every day words. Out of an hour show he devoted maybe 30 seconds to a description of her and on that alone you have made a construct that the facts don’t support, that BOR blamed the victim. Are you now backing off “lurid” and ” over-sexuallized”? Have you listened to the tape from Mike C that is still available.

    Let me show you my first reaction to reading the very short transcript that has started this bruhaha at OW:

    “By Grammie on March 3, 2009 1:39 AM

    My first thought when I read the transcript was that I hoped some dopey permissive parents out there got the message and perhaps it saved another young girl from such a fate. I have teenage granddaughters and I sure hope that we have instilled enough judgment in them to not ever put themselves in such a situation. And if we haven’t that we exercise enough control that we don’t have to depend totally on their less than mature good judgment and sense.

    My second thought was that it sounded, from the short quote as if BOR was blaming the young girl. There is nothing that she and/or her family has ever done to deserve such a horrible fate.

    In BOR’ favor is that he donates every penny of profit from his factor gear to causes such as this. He has also put a lot of public pressure on the judicial system to treat such things for the horrendous crimes they are.

    That is why I too would like to hear the whole thing. KO et al don’t have any track record of being fair and honest in their accusations and condemnations.”

    I went into the radio copy with an open mind that it could be as claimed or might not be.

    After listening to it this was my response:

    “By Grammie on March 3, 2009 4:00 PM

    Mike C, thank you so much. As usual the audio just wouldn’t work for me but I’m listening now. My suspicions were well founded.

    Steve, you should at least listen to the first two segments.

    Surprise, surprise surprise KO’s whole schitck was built on a quote so isolated it almost rises to the level of a lie.

    BOR was highlighting what happened to that poor girl and Mel Gibson’s drunken rant as a morality tale, if you will, about the dangers of anyone, but especially young people, drinking to the point that they are no longer rational people in charge of their own fate.

    In other words, KO was being his own AH self.”

    BTW, have you listened to the radio replay yet? There is a difference between techniques between good writing for the spoken word and good writing for the only to be only word. That is why I keep harping on this and I don’t know why you don’t even answer the question.

    BTW, I am Grammie. It is a very long story how I wound up with Misspoupou!.

  133. bigred08 Says:

    Mmmm….chicken.

  134. MissP, “mini dress”, “halter top” and “bare midriff” are phrases used to describe how sexy a girl is. In the context of a rape-and-murder victim, they are lurid. I don’t need to hear the radio segment. I’ve read the relevant paragraphs. There is no proper context for sexualizing the appearance of the victim for his audience. It’s either to imply the way she was dressed contributed to her demise, or it’s simply so BOR and his listeners can play out some sick rape fantasy in their minds. Either one is reprehensible.

  135. ““mini dress”, “halter top” and “bare midriff” are phrases used to describe how sexy a girl is”. No, they are phrases that accurately describe what someone was wearing

    “I don’t need to hear the radio segment. I’ve read the relevant paragraphs.” Classic language of a closed mind. The words, themselves, are not at all lurid even when the subject of those comments is a rape victim. If the speaker embellished those words, however, that might make them lurid comments. The level of embellishment within a spoken word is near impossible to discern from a written transcript.

  136. misspoupou Says:

    “It’s either to imply the way she was dressed contributed to her demise, or it’s simply so BOR and his listeners can play out some sick rape fantasy in their minds. Either one is reprehensible.”

    Projection perhaps? Why, yes I do believe so.

  137. MissP, do you have an explanation for his description of the girl that renders it non-offensive? At 138 comments we STILL haven’t had anyone come up with one. The best defense you and your cohorts have come up with is that he was talking about the dangers of drinking too much. Nobody is denying that that is a legitimate discussion.

    The problem is with the description of the young woman’s attire, as if that also contributed to her problem that night. The reason why you boneheads keep avoiding the topic is because you agree with BOR that the sexy clothes caused the predator to snap. That’s ridiculous. If he favored cute young girls stranded and drunk at 2AM, she could have been wearing sweats and a hoody and she still would have been appealing to him. Just admit you support the “dressed innappropriately and dead because of it” theory instead of pretending there is some other context for BOR’s comments.

    I know what lurid means, and describing a dead girl’s appearance in a manner intended to graphically set up for the listener how smokin’ she was meets the definition. So does that crap where he rails about teen behavior while looping B-roll of chicks in bikinis.

  138. misspoupou Says:

    No, I don’t think so.

    Why should I continue to talk to the only man here seems to have an unhealthy and salacious interest in one sentence while accusing others of reveling in it.

  139. “The reason why you boneheads keep avoiding the topic is because you agree with BOR that the sexy clothes caused the predator to snap.”

    “Just admit you support the “dressed innappropriately and dead because of it” theory instead of pretending there is some other context for BOR’s comments.”-joeremi

    The certainty with which you claim to know the motives of O’Reilly has now been extended to those who disagree with your claim that you know the motives of O’Reilly. I am not surprised.

    Regarding your: joeremi Says:

    March 9, 2009 at 11:48 am
    Well? Instead of discussing , BOR decided it would be more helpful if he pointed out she was 5′-2″, 105 lbs. and wearing a mini skirt and halter top which exposed a bare midriff.
    =-=

    What is your motive for saying O’Reilly didn’t discuss “the hazards of a young woman being caught drunk and alone in the middle of the night” when it is perfectly clear, to anyone who has listened to the tape, that O’Reilly discusses those hazards?

  140. I believe O’Reilly’s point was that the time of night, where she was, the fact she was alone and perhaps inebriated, as well as how she was dressed were all contributing factors to her becoming a target of that creep. This does not in any way take the burden of blame from being squarely on the low-life scum bag who did that to her. A woman should be able to dress however she wants, be wherever she wants whenever she wants, and be alone if she wants without fear of attack. Unfortunately, a criminal’s perverted sense of justification does not usually conform to society’s sense of right and wrong.

    Although I tend to discount the mode of dress as being a significant factor in the likelihood of anyone being attacked, it is a commonly held belief and I have to admit it is plausible. Taking O’Reilly’s comments in their entirety I find it hard to believe anyone can seriously claim that he tried to place blame on the helpless victim or that he said those words in a lurid fashion. That is simply ridiculous.

    I hope everyone tells their sons and daughters to always stay in a group whenever they are out drinking because that is when their usual good judgment and ability to sense potential danger is most compromised.

  141. Al sums it up nicely. I have no argument with the discussion of drunkenness getting you into trouble. I just think – and most BOR fans here seem to disagree – that he gave the detailed description of the victim’s appearance for a reason, and being that you can determine a man’s thoughts by his words, that reason was at best, salacious; at worst, spreading blame for the crime a little too widely for my taste.

    And Missy, attacking me for being the only one here criticizing BOR’s comments is kind of silly. This blog is heavily dominated by right-wingers who apparently can’t stomach criticism of O’Reilly when he starts creeping out. I’m purposely continuing to speak up because no one else will. Now go ahead, have the last word.

  142. misspoupou Says:

    Joey, I attacked you b/c you are the lonely lefty walking through a tough right wing neigrborhood?

    I think not. I was responding to this overarching theme and accusation in virtually all of your comments with me:

    “I’ve read the relevant paragraphs. There is no proper context for sexualizing the appearance of the victim for his audience. It’s either to imply the way she was dressed contributed to her demise, or it’s simply so BOR and his listeners can play out some sick rape fantasy in their minds. Either one is reprehensible.”

    Look to the pole in your eye rather than the speck in your neighbor’s eye.

  143. Oh Geez, not the cast-the-first-stone thing again. Bill O’Reilly is a thoughtful, entertaining talk show host. He’s also occasionally creepy.

  144. JR–Got yer back in right-wing land. Funny thing is I like BO as a host, but all that I’ve seen and heard tells me a jackass. Watch him every night. Hannity, polar opposite. He appears to be, and people say, he’s a great guy. But as a host, he’s gotten on my nerves since he was local in Atlanta. Couldn’t believe it when he went TV, even on a brand-new network. Solo has not improved the situation. Go figure.

  145. misspoupou Says:

    No, not that and it is somewhat disingenuous of you to claim it.

    I objected to this:

    “I’ve read the relevant paragraphs. There is no proper context for sexualizing the appearance of the victim for his audience. It’s either to imply the way she was dressed contributed to her demise, or it’s simply so BOR and his listeners can play out some sick rape fantasy in their minds. Either one is reprehensible.”

    Particularly to this which is a direct charge:

    :BOR and his listeners can play out some sick rape fantasy in their minds.”

    You are the one who seems to have a fascination with sick rape fantascy and what triggers them.

    You brought the discussion over the line that you were constantly skirting with that one.

    So, fantasize away.

  146. BS, MissP. I don’t get to be the creepy one for pointing out the creepiness. He described the victim in a gratuitous manner which the discussion did not require. If you can find another reason other than the two I layed out for describing her in such a lascivious fashion, I’d like to hear it. The best you’ve come up with is you don’t know why he did it. Give me a break. If you think my conclusions are off the mark, you have to provide an alternative.

    By the way, The Factor is on right now…running B-roll of spring breakers in bikinis. Please.

  147. “He described the victim in a gratuitous manner which the discussion did not require.” No, he didn’t and I explained why he said those things. I wish more people on the public stage would speak so frankly.

    “By the way, The Factor is on right now…running B-roll of spring breakers in bikinis. Please.” The timely subject was “Spring Break”, and specifically in Mexico. O’Reilly argued his opinion that parents can say, “No” about dangerous destinations and he was adequately rebutted by Mr Bamrud. Interesting how a “liberal” finds offence with swimwear-clad kids while a “conservative” like myself finds it to be no big deal.

  148. I don’t have a problem with “swimwear-clad kids” in general, I have a problem with BOR’s liberal use of that footage. The story itself was a worthy topic. That’s my conundrum with Bill: Good topic with a dash of exploitation. It’s a little too Maury Povich/A Current Affair for me. No wait…Inside Edition!

  149. Well, since I think he’s a loud mouth jerk I guess I can’t fault you for thinking he’s too “Inside Edition”-ish. snicker

  150. thedreadedpatrick Says:

    First of all Grammie O’Reilly is a loud mouthed jerk, Johnny Dollar and Mikec are scum for standing up for what Billo said, Rush Limbaugh is a pill poppin idiot, Obama is president and you are a senile old lady who does not have a clue, Miss POOP

  151. Wow…this thing is still going. For the record, I did get an email response from Ellen of the Alexa Foundation and she did admit to posting that comment.

    I’d love to know which one of you is Claudo who posted on Newshounds that I’m J$ butt-boy. One of these days I should do a long comment on why I trust J$ regarding a lot of things…but not everything.

  152. Come on Patrick, MissP and I disagree. The namecalling is juvenile.

    Hi Spud!

  153. …although she did accuse me of being a sicko for pointing out BOR’s sicko-ness. I could have done without that “one-finger-pointing-at-you-three-back-at-me” pop psychology BS. Now if you’ll excuse me, I seem to have something in my eye…

  154. misspoupou Says:

    Well, Joe, at long last we agree on something.

    I had heard of Spud over at OW. So, is ICN2 and Spud one and the same and the owner of this site?

    Oooooooooh, the DREADED Patrick. He’s so scary. Why I heard that he actually called someone the dreaded insult “POOP”, the all caps one which is really big bad he man tough!

    Hey, Patsy, stuff a sock in it!

  155. Yes, Spud (I have no idea why we call him that) is ICN2 and owner. And international jet setter!

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: