Factor Viewers Send Bomb Threats & Jam Fallen Patriot Fund Phonelines

  • 11-28-07 -- Billy says Republicans never do anything bad, and if they did he would report it.

    Bill-O lashed out at Cuban for releasing the movie redacted, he called for people to picket the movie theaters that show it, and he called for people to get Cuban. He also mocked Cuban, who is one of nine producers on the movie, for appearing on Dancing with the Stars, a show which has also been the target of O'Reilly.

    After Billy called for his viewers to go after Cuban his businesses got bomb threats, his employees were threatened, Mark Cuban himself got death threats, and threats of physical harm, and they wished every manor of death, injury, and illness on them all. They also managed to fill up the telephone lines of the Fallen Patriot Fund so they could not conduct business, and the fund's website went offline for the first time ever.

    That is what Republicans do when Billy calls them to action. What kind of sick bastard floods a fallen patriot fund phone line so they cant do business, especially when they claim to support the troops. I'll tell you what kind, the sick right-wing jerks who watch the factor, that's who. Then they hack the website and knock it offline.

    And that is a U.S. troops charity, it has given $2.5 million dollars directly to wounded troops who came back from Iraq and Afghanistan. Not a dime goes to overhead because Mark Cuban pays for all the charity's expenses with his own money

    Bill'y crazy far right viewers are so insane they send bomb threats to anyone they dont agree with, then they jam phonelines of a troop charity, and hack the website. All because Billy called for them to get Cuban. Then he has the nerve to say Republicans never do anything bad.

    EARTH TO O'REILLY - THAT IS BAD, THEY ARE REPUBLICANS, AND YOU CAUSED IT. THEN NEVER REPORTED IT.

    The real story is that O'Reilly does not want people to see the movie because it exposes the abyssmal job the so-called liberal media has done in covering the Iraq war. It's been whitewashed and hidden, and people really have no idea what's going on. The movie centers on a fictionalized account of a rape and murder by US soldiers, but according to Cuban (who should know; he's SEEN the movie):
    "It doesnt represent the norm and the movie doesnt say it represents the norm. The movie is fully pro Troops. The hero of the movie is a soldier who stands up for what is right in the face of adversity. I think that the concept that the enemy will see these films and use it as motivation is total nonsense. We have no plans of translating these movies to arabic or other middle eastern languages. It's really easy to hate, its really hard to think issues through on their own merits. Anything that makes people think about issues is a good thing."
    O'Reilly's call for action resulted in this behavior:
    "The people who take you literally took it upon themselves to call my businesses with bomb threats, threaten employees, myself and others with physical harm and wish every manor(sic) of death , injury and illness on us all. They also managed to fill up the telephone lines of the Fallen Patriot Fund so that we couldn't conduct business, and the fund's website went offline for the first time ever."
    The Factor Producers even wrote to Mr. Cuban, here is their e-mail, and his reply.

    From: "Watters, Jesse" Jesse.Watters@FOXNEWS.COM
    To: Mark.Cuban@dallasmavs.com
    Cc: mark@hd.net
    Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 13:14:55 -0400
    Subject: o'reilly factor request

    Mr. Cuban,

    The Factor will be doing a segment this evening on Redacted...which, as you know, depicts US atrocities in Iraq. The director says the the depicted rape is "the reality" of what is happening in that country. Of all of the schools that are being built, the medical care being supplied, and the security that our soldiers have been providing to Iraqi neighborhoods...do you agree that a few random and horrific crimes represent the norm of what is going on in that newly liberated country? and what exactly was it about the film that made you want to produce it?

    Thanks

    Jesse Watters
    The O'Reilly Factor
    Fox News
    212-301-3404

    ----------------

    To: "Watters, Jesse" Jesse.Watters@FOXNEWS.COM
    Cc: mark@hd.net
    Date: 09/04/2007 12:55 PM
    Subject: Re: o'reilly factor request

    No, it doesnt represent the norm and the movie doesnt say it represents the norm. Seperate the self promotion of Brian Depalma from the movie. The movie is fully pro Troops. The hero of the movie is a soldier who stands up for what is right in the face of adversity.

    Maybe Bill can attempt to be fair and balanced and actually see the movie before he thinks he knows what he is talking about.

    And this is one of many movies we produce. I actually have seen it and think it is an amazing movie. But to answer your question, I didnt read the script or know all that much about it before we greenlit it. As we do with several big name directors, we give them carte blanche in producing their movies.

    And to pre empt some of the stupidity coming from bloggers, I am fully Pro Troops, Pro America. I think that the concept that the enemy will see these films and use it as motivation is total nonsense. We have no plans of translating these movies to arabic or other middle eastern languages. Nor will we provide batteries or electricity for them to watch bootleg DVDs as some zealots have suggested online.

    And no , I am not involved in Loose Change. No I didnt finance it. No I didnt plan to have it translated to multiple languages as Mr Oreilly claimed on air. His command of the facts is truly abysmal.

    What other lies has Bill spread that I can dispel ?

    Oh, as far as other movies we have distributed, we released Voices of Iraq, a movie whose PR campaign was financed by Republicans right before the 2004 election. You may have caught my comments about this very much pro Iraq movie that "this is a movie everyone should see before the election"

    And maybe Bill can do something that is truly fair and balanced and put in a plug for WWW.fallenpatriotfund.org . A fund I started right after the war started. We provide funding for soldiers in need. To date we have given 2.5mm dollars in grants. 100pct of the money goes to the troops, not a single penny is spent on overhead or expenses. I cover those myself.

    Oh, and I dont know how bill feels about No End in Sight, but we distributed that movie as well.

    Thats my feedback for Mr Bill

    And Mr. Cuban also had this to say on his blog:

    To answer the question of why we distribute or get involved with politically charged movies ? Because I am a zealot that truly believes what JFK said and that I quoted in my last blog post. To paraphase, "A country afraid of the marketplace of ideas is a country afraid of its people". Its really easy to hate, its really hard to think issues through on their own merits. Anything that makes people think about issues is a good thing. I don't take sides, Diversity of information makes for more informed perspective and decisions.

    Which leads to my position on the Iraqi War. I hate that thousands of our troops have died. It sickens me to think of how their families must feel and every single day I wake up I say thank you to them, as I thank all those who have come before them for their sacrifices to make this country so great and to give me the opportunity to live the life I have and enjoy my family. I have never, nor will I ever take for granted the liberties we have in this country.

    That said, I don't agree or disagree with the war because I don't know enough. There isn't enough information available to me to take a position beyond hoping that it runs its course very very quickly and our troops return home safely as soon as it is viable.

    And to anyone who has ever questioned my patriotism or love for this country, fuck you.

    Mark Cuban

    Keith-O Hammers Bill-O For USO Attacks

  • 11-28-07 -- Partial transcript from the 11-27-07 Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

    OLBERMANN: Perhaps the only thing more offensive than slamming the folks who are trying to support the troops is to have one of those persons on your show and slam him in person. Thus, in our third story on the COUNTDOWN, the Frank Burns of news, Bill O'Reilly, did exactly that. Attacking the USO again, and suggesting that one celebrity who should definitely be allowed to entertain the troops is the conservative radio host Dr. Laura Schlessinger, even though she has bad-mouthed wives of the troops.

    Last night, Bill-O returned to his dilemma of why the USO doesn't send more celebrities to Afghanistan;

    "O'REILLY: When I visited Afghanistan a few days ago, I found very few celebrities had gone to that country and nobody there knew why."

    In case you didn't check your messages, Bill, you got faced by the USO while you were over there. After you had shot off your bazoo about how only you and Toby Keith had gone to Afghanistan and the USO had displeased you, the USO pointed out that 12 acts visited Afghanistan last year alone, including the Dallas Cowboy's cheerleaders, the actor Gary Sinese, Vince Vaughn and Al Franken. By the end of next month, 19 more acts will have toured the country this year, actual celebrities, not Bill-O.

    But besides repeatedly complaining to the president of the USO, Edwin Powell, that the USO is not doing enough, O'Reilly specifically cited the case of Dr. Laura.

    (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

    DR. LAURA SCHLESSINGER, TALK RADIO HOST: I had my staff call the USO at least four, if not more, times and volunteer me, and run around and rejection. They said, you can't just come once or twice. You have to go on a specific tour of going back 18 million times or something. Anyway, they just blew me off.

    O'REILLY: And then, you heard Dr. Laura. She says you blew her off. What's that all about.
    EDWARD POWELL, PRESIDENT AND CEO, USO: Well, again I can't --
    O'REILLY: You are the head of the show.
    POWELL: Well, that's true.
    O'REILLY: Is she lying?
    POWELL: I'm not going to go there on that.
    O'REILLY: All right. And if Dr. Laura wants to go, you get her butt over there, sir.
    POWELL: It's not up to me to determine whether she goes or not.
    O'REILLY: If the DOD says no, then we'll find out about it.

    (END VIDEO CLIP)

    OLBERMANN: Is he drunk? He sounded drunk there, didn't he? In May of this year, before she took the stage at the Base Theater at Fort Douglas in Utah, Dr. Schlessinger addressed complaints of military wives, quoting;

    "He could come back without arms, legs or eyeballs and you're bitching? You're not dodging bullets, so I don't want to hear any whining. That's my message to them."

    In fact, O'Reilly defended Dr. Laura back when that piece in "The Salt Lake Tribune" was published, saying that the reporter, quote, is out to hurt you. Not as much as she is evidently out to hurt herself. The hypocrisy rolled on; O'Reilly spent most of his program on issues vital to the well-being of the troops and the safety of the nation, the Natalie Holloway story, followed by breaking news from the perilous situation involving TV's Hannah Montana.

    And then he went back and tried to kick Mark Cuban in the basketballs again for his financing of the movie "Redacted," which fictionalizes real life examples of the brutality of the war in Iraq;

    "O'REILLY: the very few theaters they're even showing it are the subject of demonstrations, like this one in Denver, led by our pal Tom White. So Mr. White and his group are patriots. Of course, the pin head of the season is Mark Cuban, who financed the awful movie. He remains unrepentant while dancing with the stars."

    Well, Mr. White and a couple of protesters drew even more attention to a movie Bill-O supposedly wants people to ignore. O'Reilly himself ignored Mark Cuban's National Guard night at his Dallas Maverick's team game, in which he gave away 20,000 t-shirts as part of the National Guard's recruiting effort. He also ignored Cuban's challenge to debate the movie here on COUNTDOWN. But did he play a poorly edited piece which interspersed combat video in Iraq with Mr. Cuban dancing on "Dancing With the Stars."

    Most importantly, Bill-O still hasn't addressed how a commercial for "Redacted" wound up in the middle of his own show. This was on November 15th. Obviously, O'Reilly does not sell the advertising time for his own program. But the fact that Fox Noise knowingly sold the spot in O'Reilly's show to Cuban, even after Mark Cuban's people specifically told them the commercials were for "Redacted," raises again the question of what Bill O'Reilly and Fox News and Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch stand for. The answer to which is not for the troops, not even for some self-flag wrapping cartoon version of America.

    They sold commercial time to a man they called un-American to advertise a movie they said was helping terrorists. What do O'Reilly and Fox stand for? The money.

    Another celebrity endorsement on the campaign trail. And speaking of Bill-O, actual hard data tonight about how much his endorsement would hurt the candidate of either party.

    OLBERMANN: Our number two story tonight, not "Dancing With the Stars" but voting with them, keeping tabs on celebrity endorsements. Oprah Winfrey had already come out for Obama, Chuck Norris for Mike Huckabee, Robert Duval backing Rudy Giuliani.

    Now it is Barbara Streisand endorsing Hillary Clinton, not too surprising since the singer, actor and activist backed the other Clinton previously, although Streisand has reportedly given money to the campaigns of all three top Democrats this year.

    Streisand calling the idea of a madam president an extraordinary thought. The value of celebrity endorsements is in doubt, however, according to a recent Pew Poll that shows newspapers carry more weight than celebrities, that an endorsements from, say, Bill O'Reilly would give the recipient a 10 percent net loss of support.

    STEWERT: Who in the hell would want to see Dr. Laura, nobody. I highly doubt that any US troops want to see Dr. Laura. That is just another right-wing propaganda piece from Billy, the reason the USO does not send her to Iraq or Afghanistan is because nobody there wants to see her.

    Poll Reporting Disproves O'Reilly Talking Points on Liberal Media

  • 11-27-07 -- Billy claims all of the media in America is liberal, that they are out to help Democrats win elections, especially the next presidential election, to help Hillary, and that they never report bad news about Democrats. I guess he forgot that same so-called liberal media spent 8 years hammering Bill Clinton every day from 1992 to 2000.

    Well yesterday that same so-called liberal media all gave great attention to a bogus internet poll showing Hillary losing to every Republican, and ignored a reputable poll finding the exact opposite. It was reported on CNN and MSNBC. Yet not a word from Billy, because it disproves his insane talking points that the media is liberal.

    Two polling firms, Zogby and Gallup, released surveys of the presidential race that offered strikingly different conclusions. The Zogby poll found that Hillary is trailing five leading GOP candidates in general election matchups. The Gallup Poll, by contrast, found that Hillary, and to a lesser degree Obama, has a slight to sizable lead over the top GOP contenders.

    A couple of other things that distinguish these two polls: The Zogby one is an online poll, a notoriously unreliable method, while the Gallup one is a telephone poll. And, as Charles Franklin of Pollster.com observed yesterday, the Zogby poll is completely out of sync with multiple other national polls finding Hillary with a lead over the GOP candidates.

    I don't need to tell you which poll got all the media attention.

    And what is worse is the Zogby poll was covered with few mentions of its dubious methodology or of the degree to which its findings don't jibe with other surveys. Bottom line: The Zogby poll was considered big news because many in the political press are heavily invested in the Hillary-is-unelectable narrative for all kinds of reasons that have little to do with a desire to practice journalism.

    But according to Billy the whole so-called liberal media hates Bush and is trying to help Hillary, ok Billy, explain to me why CNN and MSNBC would report the results of a bogus online poll and ignore the real poll run by Gallup.

    Note: Those online Zobgy polls are worthless, and they have no credibility, in fact, all online polls are worthless. Because they can be rigged by running a multi-vote script on them, and because they have a built in bias.

    The people who voted in the online Zogby poll were people who registered to take their polls. And the Republicans consider John Zogby a liberal, so they told Republicans on conservative forums to register for the Zogby polls so they could bias the results. I saw the postings asking conservatives to do it, so now the Zogby online polls are being rigged by Republicans. And what these Republicans also do on the Zogby poll service is claim they are Independents or Democrats. Funny how the so-called liberal media does not tell you any of that. Then they report the results of that bogus, biased, and rigged poll, while at the same time ignore the real polls.

    The only Zogby polls that have any credibility are the phone polls, because they use random sampling. No online polls have any credibility, none. The only polls that have any credibility are the polls that do random sampling by phone, and they poll the percentage of registered voters.

    For example, the country is roughly 35% Democrats, 30% Republicans, and 25% Independents. So any random sample phone poll should sample 35% Democrats, 30% Republicans, and 25% Independents. If they dont, that poll is also worthless. A valid poll must sample the percentage of the registered voters by party, and do it by random sample phone calls, or that poll is garbage.

    Mark Cuban Challenges Bill O'Reilly to a Debate

  • 11-14-07 -- But guess what folks, it is never going to happen, ever. Because Billy is just a loud mouth right-wing fake tough guy, he will never debate Cuban anywhere but on the factor, where he can control the mic, the questions, and the edit button. So if you think Bill O'Reilly will ever debate Mark Cuban, think again, O'Reilly is a coward who only debates people on his own show.

    Mark Cuban, the billionaire NBA team owner and movie producer says he'd like to have a "discussion" with O'Reilly about his new and controversial movie Redacted. And Cuban would like to have the discussion moderated by Keith Olbermann on MSNBC's Countdown.

    This latest round in the O'Reilly/Cuban battle happened last Friday when Cuban took a shot at O'Reilly while speaking at the Blog World Expo in Las Vegas. O'Reilly picked up on Cuban's comments on his show Monday night:
    O'REILLY: "You ought to be ashamed of yourself. While you're Dancing with the Stars, sir, hundreds of thousands of brave military people are risking their lives so you can do the mambo without fear of some terrorists blowing you the hell up. Your arrogance is horrifying."
    Olbermann emailed Cuban and asked if he would respond. Cuban did. Here is the email:
    CUBAN: "The definition of Billsanity is repeating the same discussion with Bill O'Reilly multiple times and expecting the outcome to change. But if Bill truly feels this is important enough to him, I invite him to come on the Countdown for a discussion about Redacted that Keith can moderate. I'm happy to have the discussion with him. I'm just as happy to sit through a screening of the movie with him if he likes."
    It's never going to happen, only because Billy is too afraid to debate anyone outside of his protected FOX news studio. If he can not control the questions, the mics, and the edit button he does not talk to anyone. So the great debate is not going to take place.

    Bill O'Reilly is The Biggest Hypocrite in America

  • 11-14-07 -- Billy has no problem sending his producer and a camera crew to someone house to ambush them, even after that person has told O'Reilly he would not talk to them. Yet O'Reilly will send a producer and a camera crew to the mans house to do a harassing ambush interview. When asked about these ambush interviews O'Reilly said he thinks they are ok, and he will continue to do them.

    But if someone goes to Bill O'Reilly's house and does an ambush interview with him, he files lawsuits and sends a letter to the dean of the law school where the guy is going to school. This is total hypocrisy, and a double standard. Note to Billy, if you ambush people at their home, then you should expect to be ambushed at your home.
    Blogger Mike Stark has a history with O'Reilly, he calls his radio show, and he visited Billy's house to mock him over sexual harassment allegations. Now Stark has become the target of a network executive working on behalf of Bill O'Reilly. Fox VP Dianne Brandi has written to the dean of the Univeristy of Virginia's law school, where Stark is in his second year, urging an investigation of his conduct.

    Stark told RAW STORY his dean has shown him a copy of the letter but would not allow it to be distributed to others. The letter accuses Stark of violating the university's codes of conduct, and it warns that he would have trouble passing the fitness review required for admission to the bar.

    The showdown began with Stark's calls to O'Reilly's radio show -- "telling the truth when he didn't want to talk about the truth," as Stark characterizes it -- and escalated to a videotaped confrontation in O'Reilly's driveway.

    Brandi claimed the visit amounted to harassment, but Stark said he sees it as a reasonable response after O'Reilly sent a producer to the home of Jet Blue CEO David Neeleman when the airline sponsored this summer's YearlyKos conference of progressive bloggers and activists.
    Now that's a good one, somehow in the world of Bill O'Reilly it is ok (and not harassment) for Billy to send a producer to a private home to confront someone. Yet when Mike Stark does the exact same thing to Billy, somehow it is suddenly harassment. And he wonders why he is known as the biggest hypocrite in America, this is a perfect example, it is total hypocrisy, and a double standard.

    Billy Has Some Really Smart Fans - NOT!

  • 11-12-07 -- This moron sent me an e-mail that was supposed to go to Billy, and btw, if you go to www.billoreillysucks.com it redirects you to www.billoreilly.com, lol. Big bad Billy bought www.billoreillysucks.com so I could not get it, haha.

    Funny how his e-mail addy is @mindless.com, especially since he sent me an e-mail for Billy and called my site billoreillysucks.com when it's oreilly-sucks.com. And I'm betting his nic name is not brainiac, lol.
    From: ron pyle - nigrough@mindless.com
    To: oreillyspins@yahoo.com
    Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 23:20:51 -0500
    Subject: To Bill O'Reilly

    Bill, just wanted you to know that your programs are honest, balanced and fair. Liberalism is a mental illness and those at billoreillysucks.com have mental problems and are unable to admit this fact Pew research proves it. What a bunch of self servers (they might be likened to pinheads). billoreillysucks.com hucksters need to quit bloviating their hateful bile and get a job, home life and girlfriend, in that order. The brown closet is no place for humans who need to become decent citizens.

    Benjamin Dover
    O'Reilly Caught Lying About Ratings, MSNBC, & The NY Times (Again)

  • 11-8-07 -- Okay first let me say that I do not give a damn about ratings for any news show, on cable or networks. I don't care if O'Reilly has 2 million viewers, or 20 million viewers, and I don't care if Brian Williams has 8 million viewers, or 80 million viewers, it is meaningless to me. I do not think any news shows should even get a rating, they should be on the air to report real news to the people, so they can make an educated and informed vote in the elections.

    I am only reporting this to show how Bill O'Reilly lies about articles in the NY Times, and what they said, and MSNBC, and how he lies about his own ratings.

    Follow Up Update 11-9-07:

    According to Nielsen Media Research live and same-day data, Countdown came within 60,000 viewers of the Factor in the 25- to 54-year-old marketing demographic on at least three occasions since September 1.

    Indeed, Countdown came within 56,000 viewers in the 25-54 age demographic on November 2; within 48,000 viewers in the adult demographic (a difference of 17 percent) on October 26; and within 19,000 viewers (and beat O'Reilly in the first half-hour) on September 7.

    Moreover, on October 19, Countdown beat the Factor in the adult demographic, topping O'Reilly's program by 25,000 viewers.

    O'Reilly was talking about MSNBC and Tucker Carlson, who is a conservative, with the lowest rated show in cable news, and a NY Times article, he wrote this.
    O'REILLY: Well, at least Carlson is honest, which is more than you can say for The New York Times. Its TV reporter, Jacques Steinberg, actually wrote an article that says MSNBC is competitive with "The Factor" at 8:00 p.m.

    Now Mr. Steinberg knows that is not true. He knows that's a lie, but he wrote it anyway.

    Here is the truth: In October, MSNBC had no overall ratings growth at 8:00 p.m. None. In the past five weeks, "The Factor" has beaten them by 225 percent in total audience and 100 percent in the key demo. Margins of victory rarely come bigger than that.

    Again, Steinberg knows the score, but chose to deceive the public -- disgraceful.
    Here is the quote from the actual NY Times article:
    On some nights recently, Mr. Olbermann has even come tantalizingly close to surpassing the ratings of the host he describes as his nemesis, Bill O'Reilly on Fox News, at least among viewers ages 25 to 54, which is the demographic cable news advertisers prefer.

    Most of the time, though, Mr. O'Reilly outdraws Mr. Olbermann by about 1.5 million viewers over all at the same hour, according to Nielsen Media Research.
    www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/business/media/06msnb.html

    Notice that Steinburg said Keith has come close to beating Billy in the 25 to 54 demo, which he has a few times, but he did not say total viewers, yet Billy claims Steinburg said Keith was competitive in the ratings, when he never said that. Steinburg specifically says 25 to 54 demo, not total viewers as O'Reilly implies, and he even points out that O'Reilly beats Keith in total viewers. Funny how O'Reilly dont mention any of that in his lie filled talking points memo.

    And now here is the real truth:

    The Factor margin of victory over Keith Olbermann for the month of November 2003 was 613 percent.

    Here is the neilson company's actual data about ratings growth at 8:00 p.m. Eastern this calendar year.

    From January 1st, 2007 to last Friday, November 2nd, 2007, the Factor is up five percent in total viewers, four percent in what is called the key demo. the 25 to 54 demo.

    Now we will compare that to Countdown's growth. It is up 63 percent in total viewers since January 1st 2007, and it is up 48 percent in that key demo, the 25 to 54 demo.

    And one more thing, since late 2004 the Factor ratings are down 37 percent. They have dropped from 3.2 million average viewers a night, to 2.2 million average viewers a night now. The Factor lost a million viewers a night after the Andrea Mackris phone sex scandal with Billy, and those people never came back.

    Since 2005, Keith Olbermann's ratings have went up 67 percent, from 380,000 a night to 677,000 a night. And he is the #1 rated show on MSNBC. Tucker Carlson (the conservative) averages 200,000 viewers a night, if that, and he is dead last in the ratings on cable news.

    Those are the real facts, right from neilson, not the made up facts, and partial facts from Billy, and that crack Factor staff. The same staff that told people to e-mail a dead guy and complain about something.

    O'Reilly Attacks Hollywood Liberals (Again)

  • 11-6-07 -- O'Reilly tried to smear Robert Redford's new film "Lions For Lambs" for the second time last night, and it hasn't even been released yet. Using chyron messages like "Career Suicide" and "Anti-American" Billy told his movie expert guests, Jeanne Wolf and Scott Foundas, that he was sure it would bomb, but they both disagreed.

    O'Reilly claims that "the folks" wont like it. And he wondered if it bombs will it hurt Redford and Cruise's careers. Foundas said Redford is "beyond the point of caring" and Cruise would just need to do another action film.

    Wolf pointed out that the box office expectations for a film like Lions for Lambs is different and if you only care about the profits, you're left with nothing but Vampire movies. O'Reilly bragged that he is "a bottom line guy" and said that he doesn't mind vampire movies as long as they are pro American vampire movies.

    There was no discussion at all about what the movie is actually about, which was clearly no accident. Redford has been screening the film at Universities hoping to to get a dialogue going about the future of this country.

    Here's a comment he made to students at Berkeley.
    "What are the conditions and factors that keep repeating these patterns?" Redford asks. "What is the mind-set that produces it? What's happened to us as a country that it keeps being about winning at any cost? How are young people treating education today, and how is it treating them? What's happened to the media because of all the corporate takeovers? What is it that would threaten our lives as individuals in a country that's supposed to represent everybody? I wanted to dramatize those kinds of questions and put them out there for an audience to think about."
    Those are questions Robert Redford wants Americans to think about, and debate, and they are the questions O'Reilly wants Americans to ignore.

    Billy shows his bias and his hypocrisy once again. When the Mel Gibson religious movie came out O'Reilly said you cant judge a movie unless you have seen it. He was talking about people who were giving negative reviews of it before they had seen the movie. And he specifically said you can not talk about the movie until you have seen it.

    Now here he is trashing the Redford movie before he has seen it. So once again Billy does not pracrice what he preaches. Which is just standard operating procedure for him. And once again Billy goes after the hollywood liberals for political reasons. Even after he says all hollywood liberals are pinheads and left-wing loons, and nobody should listen to anything they say.

    Then he reports on what someone in hollywood says or does every night, and links them to political positions of elected officials in the Democratic party. It's all part of the O'Reilly agenda to smear the Democratic party by using hollywood liberals as examples of Democrats in Congress and the Senate.

    O'Reilly is just Sean Hannity with his own show, except he wont admit he is a biased conservative. He is a joke to anyone who is not a conservative. It's not a no spin zone, it's an all right-wing spin zone. The show is basically a forum for Billy to put his right-wing spin on every issue facing America. And if you don't agree with him you are un-American.

    It's not even a news show, it's a propaganda outlet for the Republican party. Billy should get his paycheck from the RNC, because he is pretty much doing their job every night.

    O'Reilly Trying to Link Left-Wing Protesters & Nuts to The Democratic Party

  • 11-6-07 -- As the election grows closer, O'Reilly's attacks grow more ruthless. His " far-left loon" routine has been kicked up a notch and now he claims the left is not only anti-Christian but also out of control, dangerous and sure to hurt or kill someone.

    On the 11-1-07 O'Reilly Factor Billy used three segments to hammer his propaganda home, which is exactly what he advised Republicans to do in his weekly column on 9-22-07, to prevent a Democratic win in 2008.

    After Newt Gingrich claimed that there was an 80% chance that Democrats would be victorious in 2008, O'Reilly sounded the alarm in his weekly column. He offered the following campaign advise to Republicans which he has been using nightly on the Factor. And btw, should a man who claims to be a non-partisan Independent journalist be writing articles giving advice to Republicans on how to smear Democrats to win elections, especially when he calls it wrong and dishonest if a liberal in the media gives advice to Democrats, just asking.
    O'REILLY: "The far left is totally out of control in this country, and a smart Republican candidate will tie those loons around the necks of Hillary or Barack Obama. Few Americans want to see Rosie O'Donnell and George Soros spending the night in the Lincoln bedroom."
    So "out of control loons" continue to dominate the Factor, and Billy also managed to bring Rosie O'Donnell back into the spotlight even though she has been keeping a very low profile. The message of a dangerously violent left emerging was played up and O'Donnell was connected to it.

    Billy also referred to the arrest of Paul Addis, who was caught entering a San Francisco Church with fireworks which O'Reilly said were explosives. And the police admitted what he had could not have caused any damage to the church. The guy is just a nut who said he was going to blow the church up, but did not have a bomb, he had some firecrackers, or gunpowder from bullets that were emptied, depending on who you believe.

    The Billy made this extreme prediction about far left protesters.
    O'REILLY: Talking Points has stated, unless the situation is dealt with by the authorities, people are going to die. In the last couple of weeks, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been assaulted, President Clinton shouted down, and the Bill Maher program interrupted. The mainstream media has been largely silent in condemning these actions.
    Yeah because they are all legal and peaceful protests protected by the constitution. It's a non-story to everyone, except far right fake news show hosts on the FOX news network, who just want to use it to smear the Democratic party.

    O'Reilly called putting fake blood on your hands and telling Condi Rice she is a war criminal with the blood of Iraqis on her hands an assault. Yet when a far right religious nut shoots and kills an abortion doctor Billy says nothing. Not to mention putting fake blood on your hands and calling someone a war criminal is called the right to peacefully protest, and protected by the constitution, something O'Reilly dont seem to care about.

    Then he claims they are felonies, and says she is facing 10 years in prison. When she was arrested after being escorted out of the hearing room, for disorderly conduct and assault on a police officer, She was also charged with defacing government property for smearing the red paint from her hands on the hallway wall outside the hearing room.

    All those charges are misdemeanors, and she was not arrested for having red paint on her hands and calling Condi Rice a war criminal. Yet Billy said she assaulted Condi Rice, and implied she was arrested for it. Which is just not true, her and 4 other people were arrested later, after she was taken out of the hearing room where she called Condi a war criminal.

    And don't just believe me, read this:
    Capitol Police said later five people were arrested, including Ali-Fairooz, who was charged with disorderly conduct and assault on a police officer.

    She was also charged with defacing government property for smearing the red paint from her hands on the hallway wall outside the hearing room. The other four protesters faced disorderly conduct charges.
    O'Reilly got his message out and succeeded in smearing the Democrats once again. Even after a segment about the horriffic right wing Westboro Baptist Church, O'Reilly claimed that the head of the Church is a Democrat. Even though it's a far right group that says God hates fags, and protests at military funerals, Billy still tries to link them to Democrats, when everyone knows they are all far right nuts.

    Make no mistake, Mr. non-partisan Independent, is using the Factor to campaign for the Republicans, and smear the Democrats.