babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » the media   » O'Reilly threatens callers on air

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: O'Reilly threatens callers on air
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 04 March 2006 12:03 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Bill has gone off the even deeper end...

Crooks & Liars has Bill's audio and Olbermann's video response

O'Reilly-FOX Security threatening callers

Olbermann: Panic in the falafel-sphere


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 04 March 2006 12:35 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Uhhh..... just to save on bandwidth, couldn't we just have a generic "Bill O'Reilly is insane" thread?
From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 March 2006 12:56 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Who's the sidekick to O'Reilly who was agreeing with his stupid comments? That annoyed me excessively. There's nothing that drives me more crazy than when they pair up some obnoxiously overbearing male host with a sycophantic female sidekick.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
eau
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10058

posted 04 March 2006 03:30 PM      Profile for eau        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree that the fawning woman role in a culture of personality is almost nauseating to see or hear.

I react to O Reilly like I do Bush..The Off Knob.


From: BC | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 04 March 2006 06:00 PM      Profile for otter        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I reiterate, guys like O'reilly and Stern are valuable voices. The market they serve with their arrogant, petty, mean-spiritedness is a clarion call that tells us we have a long way to go before we can call ourselves a healthy society.

Only when their voices are unable to find an audience will we all be able to move on in the creation of a truly functional, compassionate and responsible community.


From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lennonist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10861

posted 04 March 2006 06:55 PM      Profile for Lennonist        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Otter,

I have to completely disagree with you. Howard Stern, whether you like him or not, is a fine example of freedom of speech and expression. Yes he is sexist and not in tune with the ever-evolving political correct rules. If you do not like Howard Stern do not listen.

However, scum like Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Hannity blatently lie and twist facts and market it as real news.

I am offended that you would include Howard Stern in the systematic manipulative corporate run right-wing echo chamber.


From: Laytons Riding | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
chilipepper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11377

posted 04 March 2006 07:11 PM      Profile for chilipepper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lennonist:
Otter,

I have to completely disagree with you. Howard Stern, whether you like him or not, is a fine example of freedom of speech and expression. Yes he is sexist and not in tune with the ever-evolving political correct rules. If you do not like Howard Stern do not listen.

However, scum like Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Hannity blatently lie and twist facts and market it as real news.

I am offended that you would include Howard Stern in the systematic manipulative corporate run right-wing echo chamber.


Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Hannity don't twist facts and and spin any more than the left wing or the democrats do, both play the same game.


From: GTA | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 04 March 2006 07:13 PM      Profile for otter        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I suggest you reread the post then lenny. the only adjectives i used where 'petty, mean-spirited and arrogant'. I could care less what issue they are flogging.
From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 04 March 2006 07:16 PM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lennonist:
However, scum like Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Hannity blatently lie and twist facts and market it as real news.


quote:
Originally posted by chilipepper:

Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Hannity don't twist facts and and spin any more than the left wing or the democrats do, both play the same game.

And one should hasten to point out that commentators like all of the above don't present any news at all-- they offer commentary.

They're not reporters, editors, producers or even anchors/newsreaders.

As I've said before, those who cannot tell the difference between news and commentary really ought not consume either.


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lennonist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10861

posted 04 March 2006 07:26 PM      Profile for Lennonist        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ya okay chilipepper.
Limbaugh explaining that tortured and humiliated Iraqis were just caught up in innocent fraternity stunts.
Left-wing media were disgusted and appalled at the humiliation and torture while the right-wing media were only disgusted and appalled that it was reported.
If you think that left-wing spin machine is equally malicious to the right-wing spin machine that Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Hannity indulge in then I believe you would find more people to your liking at FreeDominion.
You remind me of some right-winger who felt that the right-wing was justified in having the White House 'fake reporter' plant Rich Gannon asking questions to counter the 50-year esteemed Helen Thomas.

From: Laytons Riding | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 04 March 2006 07:33 PM      Profile for otter        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
left wing, right wing,
bling bling.

i think your just winging it anyways


From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lennonist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10861

posted 04 March 2006 08:00 PM      Profile for Lennonist        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Crippled_Newsie:

Who exactly are these reporters that you are talking about. All I see is "he said" or "she said". It seems like 'reporters' are only bulletin boards these days. They just regurgitate what somebody of importance has said. They do not seem to care whether it is truth that they are saying.

What exactly is this difference that you perceive between commentators and reporters? In fact we can all just by-pass the reporters and go right to the commentary since the reporters job is not to filter out the BS anymore.


From: Laytons Riding | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lennonist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10861

posted 04 March 2006 08:06 PM      Profile for Lennonist        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
otter:

From your post it sounded like you would like to censor Howard Stern because he is not moral enough for you. Stern has his niche market. I say Stern is entertaining to his listeners whereas O'Reilly is toxic and misrepresents facts on purpose to advance a political agenda. I do not think Stern misrepresents facts the way that the right-wing echo chamber does.


From: Laytons Riding | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
chilipepper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11377

posted 04 March 2006 08:49 PM      Profile for chilipepper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lennonist:
otter:

From your post it sounded like you would like to censor Howard Stern because he is not moral enough for you. Stern has his niche market. I say Stern is entertaining to his listeners whereas O'Reilly is toxic and misrepresents facts on purpose to advance a political agenda. I do not think Stern misrepresents facts the way that the right-wing echo chamber does.


O'Reilly is only toxic if you happen to disagree with him and does not represent your political agenda. Many people consider some left wing views 'toxic' its a matter of opinion. I've seen O'Reilly a few times and each time he has had both sides of an issue represented. Bias exists on both sides, and sometimes prevents people from assessing both sides of the issue rationally - idealogy gets in the way.


From: GTA | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lennonist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10861

posted 04 March 2006 09:00 PM      Profile for Lennonist        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Chilipepper:
quote:
I've seen O'Reilly a few times and each time he has had both sides of an issue represented.

Are you even aware of what this thread is all about?
It is about O'Reilly cutting off dissenting views. In this case he threatens the caller and all future callers to not call with dissenting views. O'Reilly is reknown for shouting dissenting views down on his show and cutting dissenting microphones off.

Anyway Chilipepper you are obviously a right-wing troll if you actually think O'Reilly is fair-and-balanced. I will not waste yours or my time discussing anything. I am about to watch two Oscar nominees right now anyway ('Walk The Line' and 'North Country'). Have fun in the 'no spin zone'.


From: Laytons Riding | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 March 2006 09:14 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, it's really kind of a waste of time having a conversation with someone who doesn't bother to read the article or watch the clip that the whole thread is about, isn't it?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 04 March 2006 11:10 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chilipepper:
Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Hannity don't twist facts and and spin any more than the left wing or the democrats do, both play the same game.

You forgot the key verb: lie.

Bald face.

Through their teeth.

Every single time they open their mouth.


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
mary123
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6125

posted 05 March 2006 12:14 AM      Profile for mary123     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Hannity are paid propagandists for George Bush which Howard Stern most certainly is not. Stern has come out AGAINST George Bush and his lying little shitholes like those mentioned above.
From: ~~Canada - still God's greatest creation on the face of the earth~~ | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Who?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12171

posted 05 March 2006 09:34 AM      Profile for Who?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Half the reason he does it is for the reaction.
I guess he got what he wanted

From: Eastern Canada | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 05 March 2006 11:40 AM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lennonist:
Crippled_Newsie:

Who exactly are these reporters that you are talking about. All I see is "he said" or "she said". It seems like 'reporters' are only bulletin boards these days. They just regurgitate what somebody of importance has said. They do not seem to care whether it is truth that they are saying.

What exactly is this difference that you perceive between commentators and reporters? In fact we can all just by-pass the reporters and go right to the commentary since the reporters job is not to filter out the BS anymore.


Why do you know about the Bush wire-tap scandal? A reporter told you.

Why do you know about Abu Ghraib? Reporters told you.

How do you know what happens at Guantanamo (to the extent it is knowable)? Reporters tell you.

How do you monitor what your MP does, says and how he or she votes? Most likely, reporters tell you.

Exactly how do you cover a story about the vile machinations of the powerful without reporting what the powerful have to say for themselves? FFS, if you think that reporters no longer act as BS filters, read a transcript of a White House briefing sometime.

Commentators, on the other hand, offer their opinions... not news. They're TV Op-Ed pages. I'm pretty certain that I wasn't the only one who got taught in Junior High to be skeptical and to consider the source of what is being presented to me.

Are reporters doing enough? Certainly not. It's never enough, and it never *has been* enough. But don't carry on as if they don't ever inform you of anything new. Don't behave as if they never challenge the lies. That you have the info to know that they are lies is a direct consequence of that challenging.

The reason why we're all pissed about what goes on in the world is because reporters have told us enough-- at least-- to where we're pretty riled, no?


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lennonist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10861

posted 05 March 2006 02:16 PM      Profile for Lennonist        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Reporters report what their employers tell them to report. If they do not report what their employers tell them to report they are fired. 95% of all major media is owned by 6 right-wing entities. I am aware that there are a bunch small indie news entities that reach people like us that choose to seek out info but the general population only gets the corporate approved scraps.

Employers control the headlines. Most people only read the headlines. The truth may be buried 1000 words into the article so people like you can say "see, they reported it". Most people never get passed the first 2 sentences.

It is not like the old days of the intrepid reporters uncovering Watergate. Media consolidation has turned news into an entertainment profit machine. Bad news does not turn profits.

Investigative reporting is rare now for two reasons.
1) It is very expensive and because news is profit-driven it is not worth the cost.
2) Many times it turns out the truth is that the guilty party is your own employer. A lot of sleazy roads lead to General Eletric which in turn in-directly own a lot of the media.

The movie 'Network' was very much on the ball about the shape of news to come.

Why do you think all the Iraq pre-invasion hype was 99% for invasion? Nobody actually questioned the evidence. They just repeated what they were told to repeat. A straight forward bulletin board. Profits. War sells. Advertisement revenues were through the roof with all the WMD updates. The only anti-invasion view allowed on major media was Farrell and Garafalo who were dismissed as flaky actors.

It is unfortunate but I stand by my assertion that big-time reporters are mainly bulletin boards.

There are pockets of legit reporters. Like Bill Moyers. But they are a dying breed being snuffed out by media consolidation and their for-profit news mentality.


From: Laytons Riding | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lennonist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10861

posted 05 March 2006 02:50 PM      Profile for Lennonist        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Other problems with the career of journalism today. A lot of reporters are trying to sell books and go on paid speaking tours so they push a personal agenda without stepping on future employers toes. Therefore they blur the line of reporter/commentary. Check out Brit Hume vs Dan Rather. Check out the Mansbridge townhall with Layton vs the townhall with Harper.

Cable news has screwed up the whole concept of news. They have to fill 24/7 with news. There just is not that much news. They make news up if there is no news. Rumours and 'what ifs' become news. Then they report on the made up news. The whole concept of news has been diluted.

Tom Tomorrow's 'This Modern World' has done some excellent satire on the whole bogus news cycles.

The days of Murrow and Cronkite are long gone. It is directly because of media consolidation.

Keep in mind I am not talking about reporters vs commentators on small time newspapers. I am talking about the national/world level big-time reporter vs commentator where the line is so blurred that you are either a bulletin board or a spin artist.

Investigative journalism is a dying past-time.


From: Laytons Riding | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 05 March 2006 04:03 PM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So I guess all those big stories I mentioned (and plenty more) just sort of slipped out somehow, against the wishes of the mysterious 'Six Right-wing Entities.'

Careless, that.


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 05 March 2006 04:30 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Crippled_Newsie, there is a lot of evidence out there that has been aired through public television on the self censorship of the MSM.
The breaking of stories in the media is often the result of dedicated human rights organisations like Amnesty and the Red Cross who present the facts and shout about abuse until it can no longer be ignored. Where was the MSM in the build up to the war in Iraq? Millions of anti war demonstrators were asking the obvious questions to which the media seemed oblivious.
The members of parliament have their debates recorded and are open to the public.
My father-in-law was a reporter, first for the Telegram and then for smaller regional papers where he became an editor, he often talked about the demise of 'real' reporting. The wire service takes the place of investigation now. To send an investigative reporter on assignment is very expensive, only those who are well financed can afford it, and the logical question is - do the well heeled want to do a lot of investigative reporting? I would think that the answer would depend on the subject of the investigation.
I look at the ownership of our 2 major daily newspapers in BC, then you look at the Vancouver Board of Trade, then you look at the Chamber of Commerce and you see all the same names. My question is if you publish a newspaper in which all your buddies from the Chamber advertise and you get wind of a nasty story that involves someone you sit next to at the monthly BoT or Chamber meeting, and publishing that story will definitely cost you advertising revenue, what will you do?
This was the question raised by the public television expose in the US involving car dealers, and the answer was, the story died a quick death.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lennonist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10861

posted 05 March 2006 04:42 PM      Profile for Lennonist        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The six puppet masters have to give you something. Lets see what kind of legs these stories have. Lets see how long it stays at the top of the news cycle. Important relevent stories die early and get buried and useless insignificant stories always get top billing for weeks on end.

Clintons blowjob. M Jackson. OJ Simpson. Lacey Peterson. These stories were front page forever.

GWBush and Cheney pasts become minor footnotes if mentioned at all.

How many people are aware that Cheney earned $36 million in 1999 as CEO of Haliburton or that that Haliburton did millions of dollars in business with Iraq in 1998 ignoring sanctions? - This is news. This is not credible White House material. Yet because it was not adequately reported, Cheney becomes Vice President. All these ignorant citizens say "I never knew". Most people think GWBush has lived on a ranch his entire life. If Clinton bought a 'fake' ranch it would be front page news for weeks.

Al Gore wearing a brown tie is front page news for weeks on end. Bill Clinton having a girlfriend is front page news for weeks on end.

Check out 'Manufacturing Consent'. Chomsky proves that the NYTimes completely under reported East Timor in comparison to the pet project of Pol Pot.

Reporters are just bulletin boards. They all stated that Harper will give a 'barefoot-and-pregnant' bonus called 'childcare'. No reporter actually tried to determine what effects would be. They all stated that Harper will give bus pass holders a $15 rebate to solve transit problems without any follow-up.

My point is that reporters can be completely bi-passed these days because they do not actually question what they write. They appear mildly objective about what they report but their employers are heavily subjective about what they report, what stry has legs and what the headlines are.

Things were different 30 years ago. It sucks now.


From: Laytons Riding | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
chilipepper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11377

posted 05 March 2006 08:04 PM      Profile for chilipepper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mary123:
Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Hannity are paid propagandists for George Bush which Howard Stern most certainly is not. Stern has come out AGAINST George Bush and his lying little shitholes like those mentioned above.

Are you saying the White House pays these people to speak for them, and if so, do you have anything to back that up. I havn't listened to Limbaugh, but I've heard O'Reilly speak out against Bush, and he's now saying he should get out of Iraq.

As far as s...holes go, I would't touch Stern with a 10 ft. pole, and not because of his politics. O'Reilly cuts people off when they start interrupting and won't let the other person speak, at least whenever I've watched it. Personally I don't find it necessary to call any broadcaster names, like I said, both sides play the same game, its not limited to the right wing.


From: GTA | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lennonist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10861

posted 05 March 2006 08:47 PM      Profile for Lennonist        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Are you saying the White House pays these people to speak for them

Yes

quote:
do you have anything to back that up

The documents have been convieniantly misplaced along with the 6 months of National Guard payroll stubs that would prove that GWBush is not a deserter. The remaining documents have been locked up for national security concerns with the secret Cheney energy meeting memos (which was chaired by Kenny-boy Lay and featured maps of Iraqi oil fields) and GHBushes presidential records.


From: Laytons Riding | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
chilipepper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11377

posted 06 March 2006 12:03 AM      Profile for chilipepper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lennonist:

The documents have been convieniantly misplaced along with the 6 months of National Guard payroll stubs that would prove that GWBush is not a deserter. The remaining documents have been locked up for national security concerns with the secret Cheney energy meeting memos (which was chaired by Kenny-boy Lay and featured maps of Iraqi oil fields) and GHBushes presidential records.


I'm curious, how do you know there were documents proving O'Reilly and Limbaugh have been paid by the White House?


From: GTA | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 06 March 2006 12:04 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think he's being sarcastic.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 06 March 2006 12:51 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Simple fact of the matter is that there ARE several "reporters" who it has been PROVED were paid by the Bush-licking Repukelicans to pump out favorable propaganda under the guise of "news". If I gave a damn about trying to prove anything to someone like chilipepper, I'd make the effort to dig out the names and supporting links, but why? Chilipepper has proved repeatedly to be exactly what s/he was termed up-thread: a right-wing troll.

I can't be bothered, and no proof would be acceptable to someone like chilipepper, anyway. So fukkit.

From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pyed Typer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12033

posted 06 March 2006 01:33 AM      Profile for Pyed Typer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hephaestion:
. . . there ARE several "reporters" who it has been PROVED were paid by the Bush-licking Repukelicans to pump out favorable propaganda under the guise of "news". . .

Speaking of . . . whatever happened with Jeff Gannon?

James Dale "J.D." Guckert, operating under the alias "Jeff Gannon," with no journalistic background, managed to obtain access to the White House briefing room regularly for two years, published what were essentially unedited White House press releases under his own byline on his personal Web site and that of Talon News, which has been shown to be a subsidiary of the right-wing organization GOP USA.

Using his own name, Guckert also ran a number of gay porn Web sites, including one called Hotmilitarystud.com.


http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/gannon.html


From: Somewhere ahead of the rats | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Yst
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9749

posted 06 March 2006 02:06 AM      Profile for Yst     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

From: State of Genderfuck | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 06 March 2006 02:12 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
James Dale "J.D." Guckert, operating under the alias "Jeff Gannon,"

Ahhh, yes. The White House's pet gay whore. How long did that stay in the news? Wonder how long it would have stayed in the news if it had happened on Clinton's watch? (If even Clinton was *that* fucking stupid.)

From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pyed Typer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12033

posted 06 March 2006 11:46 AM      Profile for Pyed Typer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I am seriously asking, what ever happened to “Jeff Gannon?” It is not just a rhetorical question.

As I remember, it only lasted for seven out of the potential nine-days wonder, it would have been dismissed after only three days, except for the delightfully salacious detail that a “reporter” approved of by the secret service to share the same airspace as other White house luminaries starred on (and I believe owned) a string of gay porn web sites.


Daily Kos has a timeline which pretty substantially demonstrates that Gannon was originally set up as a friendly reporter to counteract (and possibly mislead) around the time that WMD were not being found in Iraq. Later, he was used as a diversion to muddy the waters surrounding the Plame affair. At all times, he could be counted on for softball questions, or ones that set up and aided administration voices in getting out their current talking points.

“Jeff Gannon” should have been a story with legs, showing up both the Secret Service and the CIA as being so inept (or involved) that they could not catch an obvious fraud for two years. But it has been so long since I last heard mention of “Jeff Gannon” that I had nearly forgotten him.

[ 06 March 2006: Message edited by: Pyed Typer ]


From: Somewhere ahead of the rats | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lennonist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10861

posted 06 March 2006 12:14 PM      Profile for Lennonist        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A big uninvestigated part of the Jeff Gannon story was all of his overnight stays at the White House. On the record he has signed in to the White House lots of times but failed to sign out too numerous to mention. He was ushered out the backdoor in the morning. This is a huge security lapse. Obviously he was employed at those overnight stays in his other occupation 'gay prostitute'. I suspect Karl Rove or possibly Dubya himself was enjoying the 'forbidden acts' that Rich sells.

Rich had hundreds of 'day' passes and unprecedented access to the White House. It really makes you wonder how he got to be so favoured unless he was a very special 'buddy' of some extremely high ranking individuals. You think he would have had a full time pass like all legit reporters unless the White House wanted him under the radar and out of scrutiny.

I do not really care about Rich Gannon turning gay tricks in the White House. I do care that this whole White House administration ran under the banner that they were the moral authority and would not allow blow jobs like Clinton had.


From: Laytons Riding | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lennonist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10861

posted 06 March 2006 12:19 PM      Profile for Lennonist        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

-------------
What happened to the picture? It looks like the whole site I found went down since this morning when I linked to the unflattering compromised pictures of GWBush and Gannon. It was called www.nogw.com.

Did the internet police catch it that fast?
All I did was google 'Rich Gannon' in images and there it was.
---------------

False alarm, I guess the site was just down temporarily.
[ 06 March 2006: Message edited by: Lennonist ]

[ 06 March 2006: Message edited by: Lennonist ]


From: Laytons Riding | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 06 March 2006 01:47 PM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lennonist:
He was ushered out the backdoor in the morning.... Obviously he was employed at those overnight stays in his other occupation 'gay prostitute'. I suspect Karl Rove or possibly Dubya himself was enjoying the 'forbidden acts' that Rich sells.
...
It really makes you wonder how he got to be so favoured unless he was a very special 'buddy' of some extremely high ranking individuals.

The wink-wink attempt to smear via homophobia above is not mitigated by the disingenuous disclaimer below:

quote:
I do not really care about Rich Gannon turning gay tricks in the White House. I do care that this whole White House administration ran under the banner that they were the moral authority and would not allow blow jobs like Clinton had.

I detest the Bush people. I detest lefty homophobes just as much.

Lennonist, you make me sick.


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lennonist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10861

posted 06 March 2006 02:11 PM      Profile for Lennonist        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I am not a homophobe at all. Half of the people I associate with are gay. But the typical right-wing response to the whole 'Rich Gannon' episode was to turn it into a gay-bashing thing.

The Rich Gannon story is all about a fake reporter eating up legit reporters White House time spewing White House written and approved gushing puff testimonials. Just like the fake townhall meetings Dubya does.

Rich Gannon plying his trade as a gay prostitute on his innumerable overnight stays at the White House was just the icing on the cake.

The Republicans are the party of choice for homophobes. The hypocracy of the Rich Gannon affair is unreal. Republicans do not consider it gay if you are the one on top.

This is the administration who was all uptight with Clintons use of Lincolns bedroom. Who do you think shared Licolns bedroom with Rich Gannon on his numerous overnight stays?

I can understandstand if Gannon was a billionaire GOP donor. But he is a gay prostitute. He had to offer something for all those overnight stays. I wonder what he donated to get all those sleepovers at the White House.


From: Laytons Riding | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
googlymoogly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3819

posted 06 March 2006 03:01 PM      Profile for googlymoogly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Lennonist, you may or may not be a homophobe. But saying that half the people you associate with are gay is really not proof that anyone is not a homophobe. Seriously, you must have the ability to understand that.

"Some of my best friends are gay, but....."


From: the fiery bowels of hell | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 06 March 2006 03:07 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by googlymoogly:
Lennonist, you may or may not be a homophobe. But saying that half the people you associate with are gay is really not proof that anyone is not a homophobe. Seriously, you must have the ability to understand that.

"Some of my best friends are gay, but....."


That's true, but you--or anyone--calling him a homophobe isn't proof that he is, either.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lennonist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10861

posted 06 March 2006 03:29 PM      Profile for Lennonist        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
By me saying that I associate with gay people means that it makes no difference to me. I could tell you that my best friend is gay but he is not. My wife is a fag-hag (not a derogatory term). The guy who cuts my hair is gay and regales all these stories to me about him and Boy George. He was telling me about Ben Affleck who constantly parties with homosexuals. Affleck is not gay (his wife is hot) so he is termed a fruit-fly (not a derogatory term). I could also tell you that my best friend is Ugandan to prove that I am not racist but he is not Ugandan.

You are the one who threw the homophobe card at me. My points are clearly stated regarding the whole 'Rich Gannon' episode. And you throwing the homophobe card at me for pointing out documented 'Rich Gannon' actions is right out of the GOP talking points about the whole fiasco.

GWBush is the guy who goes out of his way to try and stop non-heterosexual marriage and as the Texas Govenor refused to allow a law to stop hate-crimes against gays.


From: Laytons Riding | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
googlymoogly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3819

posted 06 March 2006 04:20 PM      Profile for googlymoogly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I....threw the homophobe card at you? You might want to get your posters straight, Lennonist.
From: the fiery bowels of hell | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lennonist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10861

posted 06 March 2006 04:32 PM      Profile for Lennonist        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
googlymoogly:
quote:
Lennonist, you may or may not be a homophobe.

Fuck you. I don't have to prove anything to you. Think twice before you throw shit like that around at anybody.

[ 06 March 2006: Message edited by: Lennonist ]


From: Laytons Riding | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pyed Typer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12033

posted 06 March 2006 04:56 PM      Profile for Pyed Typer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Just because a person’s nude photo appears on a Gay or Lesbian Website, it does not follow that said person is necessarily homosexual, nor is a person physically in the White House when the “Access Control Records” says he is not, necessarily there for a prurient purpose.

Nonetheless, . . . ["Gannon"] never entered or exited the White House on these days, according to Secret Service "Access Control Records" released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request from Reps. John Conyers (D-MI) and Louise Slaughter (D-NY).

The audio and video prove he was there. By what means, however, remains unanswered by the bodyguards for the most powerful man in the world. . .”

This, and both the Secret Service and the CIA’s two year failure to ferret out “Jeff Gannon’s” actual identity, where ordinary civilians tracked it down with little difficulty, once they had been motivated to search, raises some interesting questions.

Only the unwavering vigilance of electronic surveillance confirms a “Gannon” presence in the White House when all other records fail to track him. Either “Gannon” was allowed to slip in through a back door left conveniently ajar, or the agency responsible for guarding the president can't even keep track of who's coming and going at the White House.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/27/85948/0070

[ 06 March 2006: Message edited by: Pyed Typer ]


From: Somewhere ahead of the rats | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
googlymoogly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3819

posted 06 March 2006 05:45 PM      Profile for googlymoogly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Lennonist, the reason I said things that way was because I hadn't been around the discussion long enough to really get an understanding of the issue. That's why. So stop swearing at me and saying I'm just "throwing shit" around and give me the apology I deserve.

Ugh. This sort of thing is only one of the reasons I hardly post here anymore.

[ 06 March 2006: Message edited by: googlymoogly ]


From: the fiery bowels of hell | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lennonist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10861

posted 06 March 2006 06:41 PM      Profile for Lennonist        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
googlymoogly, you may or may not prefer beastiality.

I do not really know about you one way or the other. See how easy it is to defame someone.

You will get no apology from me.

I have made hundreds of posts here and have never written anything remotely homophobic or racist.

I only once got a warning from Michelle.
It was for taunting and toying with an ultra-sensitive crybaby from Alberta who had no problem insulting Toronto but had a real problem with the Albertan payback.


From: Laytons Riding | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
googlymoogly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3819

posted 06 March 2006 06:44 PM      Profile for googlymoogly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I honestly don't feel defamed by that.
From: the fiery bowels of hell | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 06 March 2006 06:50 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Crip raises (I think) a valid point. If it's true that you "do not really care about Rich Gannon turning gay tricks in the White House," then why mention it as a possibility? Why is it "obvious" that he was doing any such thing? Is anyone who sleeps overnight at the White House (regardless of orientation or gender) to be suspected of having sex with Karl Rove or Bush? (Personally, IF any such thing was going on, I'd be more inclined to suspect former press secretary Scott McClelland than anyone else.) Be that as it may, while it MAY not have been a homophobia-inspired statement, it was definitely a salacious one, prompted by titillation over spectulation that Gannon may have been engaging in "forbidden acts" with top-rank "buddy" Republicans. In short, it was a titter-behind-the-back-of-the-hand type of attempted smear, based on the suggestion that Bush and/or Rove were having sex with Gannon.

You may not be a homophobe, Lennonist, but you do yourself little credit with such posts.


(And googly, I for one am **happy** that you are back posting! )


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Who?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12171

posted 06 March 2006 07:17 PM      Profile for Who?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by googlymoogly:
I....threw the homophobe card at you? You might want to get your posters straight, Lennonist.

Crippled_Newsie did actually.


From: Eastern Canada | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 06 March 2006 07:24 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I wonder if anyone is wondering about what women Karl Rove may have slept with...?
From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lennonist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10861

posted 06 March 2006 07:27 PM      Profile for Lennonist        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Republicans and especially this particular White House Administration are no friend of non-heterosexuals. They are always the first and most vocal against anything dealing with non-heterosexuals. Like, for instances, firing all the non-heterosexual translaters in the army. Therefore the whole Rich Gannon multiple slumber parties at the White House is especially hypocritical.
From: Laytons Riding | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pyed Typer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12033

posted 07 March 2006 01:14 AM      Profile for Pyed Typer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hephaestion:
I wonder if anyone is wondering about what women Karl Rove may have slept with...?

ENOUGH of this fruitless argument!

And thank you, very much Hephaestion.

You have just provided me with a mental image which I must speedily have removed with a scalpel!


From: Somewhere ahead of the rats | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
googlymoogly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3819

posted 07 March 2006 01:56 PM      Profile for googlymoogly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
(And googly, I for one am **happy** that you are back posting! )

Thanks I'll admit the general latent transphobia among some posters here can be a bit much to tackle, so I'm not sure I'll ever post as much as I once did. But I luff you people

[ 07 March 2006: Message edited by: googlymoogly ]


From: the fiery bowels of hell | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 07 March 2006 02:05 PM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Who?:
Crippled_Newsie did actually.

I did. And just when I thought perhaps I was hasty, came this superficial nonsense:

quote:
My wife is a fag-hag (not a derogatory term). The guy who cuts my hair is gay....

I stand by the 'card' already played.


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lennonist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10861

posted 07 March 2006 02:34 PM      Profile for Lennonist        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Have you ever seen the popular show called 'Will & Grace' starring that guy who went to Ryerson? That show is always in the top 10-20 for ratings. They call themselves 'faghags' all the time. Maybe you should go back to watching the Pat Robertson family hour to keep abreast at what is politically correct. Don't forget to pay your monthly membership dues to Jerry Falwells Moral Majority.
From: Laytons Riding | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
googlymoogly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3819

posted 07 March 2006 02:47 PM      Profile for googlymoogly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
One can be a homophobe and not be an unequivocal supporter of Pat Roberton or his ilk. More than that, one can have latent homophobic tendencies. Sometimes it's a sign of maturity to simply listen to what others are saying and make some even small attempt to understand why it may be considered offensive to some, rather than jumping to a childish bleat of "OMG a gay guy on tv said it so it must be true!!! I am SO NOT a HOMOPHOBE!"

Try seeing the world through our eyes, Lennonist. At least try.


From: the fiery bowels of hell | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 07 March 2006 02:51 PM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lennonist:
Have you ever seen the popular show called 'Will & Grace' starring that guy who went to Ryerson? That show is always in the top 10-20 for ratings. They call themselves 'faghags' all the time. Maybe you should go back to watching the Pat Robertson family hour to keep abreast at what is politically correct.

Will & Grace as the standard for political correctness? Yes, I recall it now: the non-threatening, sexless gay-men-as-bufoons minstrel show-- so correct; so comforting.

Afraid you're still holding the Old Maid card, chappie.


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 07 March 2006 03:17 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crippled_Newsie:

Why do you know about the Bush wire-tap scandal? A reporter told you.


A year after they found out about it, and conveniently after the election.

quote:
Why do you know about Abu Ghraib? Reporters told you.

Specifically, Seymour Hersh told us - not your usual reporter.

quote:
How do you know what happens at Guantanamo (to the extent it is knowable)? Reporters tell you.

Not on the TV news, at least not until it comes out on the web first (usually by unpaid journalists).

quote:
How do you monitor what your MP does, says and how he or she votes? Most likely, reporters tell you.

Interesting theory. Aside from the odd scandal or occasional figurehead talking, I've rarely seen a reporter tell anyone anything about what MPs actually do. Outside an election, that is, where we get to have reporters tell us that a 2% swing in the day-day polls is a 'mood shift'.

Exactly how do you cover a story about the vile machinations of the powerful without reporting what the powerful have to say for themselves? FFS, if you think that reporters no longer act as BS filters, read a transcript of a White House briefing sometime. The problem is the lack of critical thinking in passing on the information. Are you arguing that the majority of news articles fact check Rumsfeld or Bush's assertions?

quote:
Commentators, on the other hand, offer their opinions... not news. They're TV Op-Ed pages. I'm pretty certain that I wasn't the only one who got taught in Junior High to be skeptical and to consider the source of what is being presented to me.

All reporters and all news reports are commentators, to a degree. Simply by deciding what is 'newsworthy', an opinion is expressed. So waiting a year to reveal that Bush is wiretapping his citizens is a form of bias - a distortion of the news. Real reporters would have asked him, or his minions, about the issue as soon as they had some evidence of it. Fake reporters would sit on it for a year, then release it when he was comfortably re-elected and had lots of time to defuse it or otherwise mitigate the damage.

quote:
Are reporters doing enough? Certainly not. It's never enough, and it never *has been* enough. But don't carry on as if they don't ever inform you of anything new. Don't behave as if they never challenge the lies. That you have the info to know that they are lies is a direct consequence of that challenging.

THat we have the info is, for the most part, not the fault of the main stream media. In large part, it happens despite the main news providers.

quote:
The reason why we're all pissed about what goes on in the world is because reporters have told us enough-- at least-- to where we're pretty riled, no?

Reporters are an important part of the mix, but to be considered 'reporters' as opposed to 'scribes' they need to apply a more critical approach than seems to be the case of late. The mindless cheerleading for the Iraq war, when a teenage debate team could poke holes in the justifications for the invasion, is the most egregious example. The pretense that none of them saw the gaping holes in the justifications for the invasion, when millions of us could see them at a glance, is another example.

Journalism has its highs and lows over time. Currently, marquee journalism has become a mockery of its former self. A lot of excellent journalism happens, but none of it is available on television news programs, or even most newspapers.

[ 07 March 2006: Message edited by: arborman ]


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lennonist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10861

posted 07 March 2006 03:49 PM      Profile for Lennonist        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I am sure that the both of you are always the quickest to throw homophobe cards and racist cards at anything you consider to be remotely offensive with these ever-evolving politically incorrect times. You cannot do or say anything these days without offending someone somewhere for the smallest little perceived infraction. Whether it is anti-semetic or racist or homophobic or anti-handicapped .... the list is endless.

I have nothing to prove to you guys. Can we please move off the whole homophobia thing?

This whole thread is about O'Reilly flipping out and personifying the right-wing media arrogance. Then somebody said that the left media is just as bad as the right media. The White House was exposed to really be cheating especially with Rich Gannon.
I pushed forward the argument that Rich Gannon should be investigated for all of Rich Gannons slumber parties.

I really would not care except for the fact that Ken Starr investigated the sexual escapades of the Democrat White House for 8 years which resulted in an impeachment. I feel it is time for payback and the Republican White House sexual escapades should be investigated with as much vigor as Ken Starr did. Starting with the numerous White House slumber parties by the gay prostitute/fake reporter Jeff Gannon.

It is too late to take the high road. The right-wing owns the White House, Supreme Court, Senate, Congress, Media. They spy on their political foes and everyday citizens. They use homeland security to track down Texas democrat senators. They have forced illegal pro-republican re-districting. They own the companies who count the votes.

It is game over. The Republicans will never let go of power. You dreamers can dream all you want about the next election.

It is obvious that plamegate, no 9/11 NORAD response, torturing, no WMDs, homeland spying, FEMAgate in New Orleans, etc. ... all non-issues.

These guys are untouchable.

Rich Gannon - gay prostitute of the White House is the only scandel that would bring these guys down.

There is no high-road anymore. There will be no road to choose if these guys continue. As ugly and uncomfortable as it is the left must take the gloves off and fight fire with fire.


From: Laytons Riding | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 07 March 2006 04:13 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's what I get for not reading the whole thread - stick a thoughtful response into the middle of yet another pissing match, and it gets ignored. Man I hate message boards sometimes.
From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lennonist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10861

posted 07 March 2006 04:22 PM      Profile for Lennonist        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
arborman:

You made a great post and unfortunately it was made while I was posting the defense of my credability. I completely concur with all of your valid points.

Small-time indie reporters report the real news that big-time reporters grudgingly have to acknowledge only after it comes to light.


From: Laytons Riding | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pyed Typer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12033

posted 10 March 2006 05:16 PM      Profile for Pyed Typer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Olbermann interviewed O'Reilly caller who was contacted by "Fox News security"

Summary: Keith Olbermann interviewed "Mike from Orlando," the man who called into Bill O'Reilly's nationally syndicated radio program and was threatened by O'Reilly with "a little visit" from "Fox security," simply for mentioning Olbermann's name on the air.

On March 9, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann interviewed "Mike from Orlando," the man who called into the March 2 edition of Fox News host Bill O'Reilly's nationally syndicated radio program and was threatened by O'Reilly with "a little visit" from "Fox security" simply for mentioning Olbermann's name on the air. Olbermann aired a recording of a voicemail "Mike" received from a man identifying himself as "Tony" from "Fox News security," and "Mike" explained that he is not the only person to have called into O'Reilly's radio program and subsequently been contacted by "Tony."

Transcript & Video at Media Matters


[ 10 March 2006: Message edited by: Pyed Typer ]


From: Somewhere ahead of the rats | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca