digg

Join DiggAbout

Kucinich, O'Reilly face off over impeachment watch!

youtube.com — Man I hate Bill O'Reilly.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • swrostmore, on 06/15/2008, -29/+411O'Reilly is a swine, but I give him credit for being one of the few news anchors to give Kucinich airtime. I'm actually pretty shocked by this. On the other hand, O'Reilly cut off Kucinich whenever he tried to make his case for impeachment or bring up any facts.
    • zebco, on 06/15/2008, -8/+74Wait a second...you DO realize you just contradicted yourself, right?
      What the ***** good does it do to give Kucinich airtime if your entire point is to make the guy look like a clueless idiot?
      Does that hurt or help the cause?
      Hurts it, without doubt. Sometimes if O'Reilly is your only option for press, skip it...you'll help your cause out by doing so. O'Reilly mouth rapes his guests in the ass when they get on there. HE knows it's going to happen, the editor knows it's going to happen and the guests HAVE to know it's going to happen.
      • noots, on 06/15/2008, -4/+40yeah, i'm not american but it's pretty clear that "debate" was nothing more than a stage allowing Bill O'Reilly to generate as much negative press on the impeachment as possible. It clearly did more harm than good.

        i honestly can't believe anyone would allow that cockferret to be on national television.
        • catcher6250, on 06/16/2008, -2/+13cockferret
        • Caffeinate, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Yeah, I had to digg it for cockferret, and I dugg you up just because you repeated it with emphasis. It's nearly as good as asstunnels.
      • ICSU, on 06/15/2008, -3/+15It doesn't hurt the case. O'reilly watchers don't watch him to hear facts and make their opinions afterwards.
      • swrostmore, on 06/15/2008, -2/+22I don't think O'Reilly succeeded in making Kucinich look bad. He had an answer for every talking point O'Reilly brought up.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 06/15/2008, -12/+4Sometimes people talk about facts a little too quickly and Bill doesn't have time to figure out what he's going to say, so he lets a bunch of stuff slip by.

      He's had a lot of time to talk about impeachment so he's quick to speak up when the topic is mentioned.
    • JimmySpaza, on 06/15/2008, -66/+8Bullcrap. Kucinich tends to drone on about the same stuff WITHOUT giving valid, specific reasons for doing so. O'Reilly was right to cut him off when Kucinich started to [blah] [blah].
      • LimeParrot, on 06/15/2008, -7/+26Oh man. What a moron.
        • JMV290, on 06/15/2008, -3/+21Are you talking about Bill O'Reilly, JimmySpaza, or both?
        • Caffeinate, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1My money is on both, though it's hardly an original or unwarranted opinion in either case.
      • FadieZ, on 06/15/2008, -4/+21You know, I encourage different viewpoints on digg all the time but you're a ***** idiot. How the ***** is he supposed to give any valid reasons if O'Reilly keeps cutting him off whenever he starts to make sense?

        "The reason was because --" "LALALALALA! NO IT ISNT! YOU'RE A CONSPIRACY NUT! BUT YOU'RE ENTITLED TO YOUR OWN OPINION!"

        I love how he pretends like he's a fair guy in the cheesiest way possible. What a retarded *****.
      • homercles337, on 06/15/2008, -5/+9Spaza you are truly a piece of work. With all the digging down that you get i wonder why you persist. Isnt it clear to you that your "ideas" are rather silly?
    • hmunkey, on 06/15/2008, -9/+9I really want to get on the Factor so I can hand Bill his ass on a platter.
      • gahal, on 06/15/2008, -3/+14Please don't kick my ass, Mr. Internet tough guy.
      • whoaohh, on 06/15/2008, -3/+16I despise Bill O'Reilly as much as the next digger, but you honestly have to be one hell of a debater to hand his ass to him on a platter. He'll just keep interrupting and changing the subject till you look like *****.
        • hmunkey, on 06/15/2008, -1/+15The difference is that usually he has important people on, the kind of people who can't be rude or get down and dirty or their image will be tarnished. I'm not a politician or celebrity, so I don't care.
        • lisaawesome, on 06/15/2008, -3/+8I have always wanted to get into a debate with O'Reilly. I think I could make him look like a bigger d-bag than he already does. You can't yell at a soft spoken, polite, petite young lady without looking like a monster. Even the crazy people who like O'Reilly have daughters or sisters they would not want to be treated with such disrespect. If there is one thing I can work it is the innocent young lady angle and it has never failed me. And yes I realize I probably sound like a manipulative bitch now but if people didn't respond positively I wouldn't do it.
        • Akronos, on 06/15/2008, -2/+12lisaawesome, while you may have a point, please realize Bill O' RLY is the same guy who had the audacity to accuse the son of a 9/11 victim of being disrespectful to 9/11 victims and his father. There is no level that Bill will not stoop to. He's the dirtiest mofo I've seen on TV.
        • flameboy, on 06/15/2008, -2/+7@hmunkey
          The problem is he is usually ruder to the people who aren't public figures. He will just yell at you and cut your mic.
      • cjshamrock, on 06/15/2008, -0/+3Mr "Internets"
      • jeebus, on 06/16/2008, -1/+1Three Words.
        "Cut His Mike"
    • scubajim, on 06/15/2008, -23/+4Kucinich has no case for impeachment. It is all for show and a play to the far left. Oh wait, that's right I'm on Digg. I mean it is all for show and a play to the centrists.
      • Stormwern, on 06/15/2008, -3/+13Yes, we're such bipartisan hacks, always pushing our bipartisan agenda..
    • homercles337, on 06/15/2008, -4/+30O'Reilly is lowest of the low. He is such a piece of ***** trash.
      • Hangly, on 06/16/2008, -0/+4He serves his masters well.
        And he will be rewarded.

        *Jedi hand wave*
        • Caffeinate, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Always two there are, Master and Apprentice. Lord Cheney and Darth Incompetus are pleased by his work.
    • Iztikeit, on 06/15/2008, -6/+1Bill is right, he really isn't going to accomplish anything. It's not right but it's how the system works right now.
      • kufu91, on 06/15/2008, -0/+13so why criticize the one person working to make congress do its job?
        • Iztikeit, on 06/16/2008, -0/+0Did I criticize anything? You must accomplish this other ways.
        • Nitrodist88, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2kufu91 was talking about Bill O'Reilly, not you.
        • Caffeinate, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1I'll talk about lztikeit, then. Since when did America come to be populated with spineless pessimists that insist nothing can be done?

          The system starts working when the people who say that it cannot be done stop interrupting the people who are doing it.
      • vandalin7, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1I'm inclined to believe that it isn't going to accomplish anything; If Bush is impeached Cheney becomes pres. right?
    • corbettkroehler, on 06/15/2008, -3/+2Ironic, isn't it!
    • rpgmaker, on 06/15/2008, -3/+9That's the whole point of this digg. That's why this video summarize everything that is wrong with Bill O'Reilly. And I don't even know which reason could lead O'Reilly to do such a thing and making stupid statements like there's "no hard evidence" behind this without even reading the 35 ***** pages.
    • perkoff, on 06/15/2008, -2/+7Maybe people that go on this show should say something like "Why do you keep cutting me off right when I'm making a good point?"

      Too bad the show isn't live. The show is pre taped so even if someone does bring this up it will be edited out.

      You're a sad sack of ***** Bill O'Reilly
      • Petrushka72, on 06/15/2008, -0/+3"Maybe people that go on this show should say something like "Why do you keep cutting me off right when I'm making a good point?""

        The reason people, esp. politicians, never ever do that is because they know from long experience that it is extremely difficult to do without sounding like a whinger. Second, it plays into the hands of the host: if the host is actively trying to wind up the guest, and if the guest reacts, the host will be able to follow through and make the guest sound like a ditherer. Third, it's not a productive use of air-time.

        On rare occasions I have heard interviewees express their annoyance at being interrupted successfully, but only ever when the guest knew that the audience weren't empathising with the host. In any O'Reilly show, you can guarantee the host WILL have the audience's sympathy, so the tactic simply won't ever work there.
    • BeefBaron, on 06/15/2008, -1/+26B: Today we have Dennis Kucinich who supports the impeachment of my good lord Emperor Bush. Hello Dennis.
      D: Hi Bi...
      B: CUT HIS MIC!
    • Wahoo06, on 06/15/2008, -7/+2Geez, don't you people have anything better to do than waste your time worrying about Bill O'Reilly?

      Seriously, why don't you all go out and get lives? I'm no O'Reilly fan, but I can think of only a billion better things to do with my time than concern myself with him.
      • Caffeinate, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Like digg you down? Yes, that works.
    • exomni, on 06/15/2008, -1/+6Why the ***** is this comment being dugg up? You shouldn't give O'Reilly credit for anything but being a piece of *****.
    • dezholling, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1He's only brought Kucinich on because he won't give Kucinich a fair interview and his viewers will love that and he will get better ratings.
    • nickert0n, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1http://digg.com/world_news/Zeitgeist_A_movie_all_A ...
  • j1a1g1, on 06/15/2008, -29/+103O'Reilly's ploy for FlexFuel at the end was ludicrous. Invest time and money into Hydrogen or Electric vehicles!
    • PinkChicken, on 06/15/2008, -7/+41Hydrogen?
      That's ludicrous.
    • gak001, on 06/15/2008, -3/+28Hydrogen is a waste of time. Plug-in Hybrids, Electric, and Flex Fuel in the meantime are the way to go.
      • MikeSD34, on 06/15/2008, -0/+14Hydrogen as part of a fuel cell for electric vehicle architecture where the hydrogen is generated from clean sources like wind and solar power could very well be an effective plan.
        • Jehutes, on 06/15/2008, -1/+1The problem with hydrogen is that there's not an effective way to obtain it without spending large amounts of energy in the process, which kind of defeats the purpose of using it as a source of alternative energy.
        • MikeSD34, on 06/15/2008, -0/+11Hydrogen in this instance isn't a source of energy, it's an energy transportation method. It provides a faster method of refueling then standard batteries allow, although there have been some impressive leaps made in super capacitors which could provide another alternative.
        • quisph, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1It is a staggeringly less effective plan than plugging those same clean sources into the grid, and charging batteries from the grid.
        • MikeSD34, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2Except current battery technology takes longer to charge then a fuel cell takes to refill. Now if you're halfway home and need to fill up, are you going to wait a couple of hours for your car to charge, or are you going to stop and pickup some hydrogen? Super capacitors solve this problem too, and are more efficient than fuel cells, but don't have the kind of capacity necessary to replace batteries yet.

          I just don't see batteries as the right way to go right now. If you want to get consumers to switch it has to be quick, convenient, easy, and cost effective. Batteries just aren't there yet.
        • Caffeinate, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Does anyone have a solid link for the chemistry behind both technologies? I can't find anything more technical than a Popular Mechanics article, which we all know has as much science in it as the back of a cereal box. Specifically, a research level paper would be great.
      • Jehutes, on 06/15/2008, -9/+1Electric cars is actually, in my opinion, worse than driving on gasoline. Sure you may not be releasing any emissions but you have to look at the root of the electric energy. Where does our electricity come from? Coal. Combusting coal actually releases more CO2 than gasoline so if anything, we'd be producing more coal generated electricity and thus making the problem worse. That is unless we find some alternative source of generating electricity like wind or solar.
        • spaniardhobo, on 06/15/2008, -2/+14Do you know what economies of scale mean ?

          A bus hauling 28 people is more efficient than 7 cars hauling 4 each one.
          A electric plant, even if it runs on oil or coal is more efficient producing energy than thousands of cars. And the losses of transporting electricity can't offset that. You won't be eliminating the Co2 problem but you will be reducing it significantly you are not "making the problem worse".

          And whenever we can start producing electricity from renewable sources in a significant amount guess what? our infrastucture and your electric car will still be able to continue rambling on.
        • kcdstudios, on 06/15/2008, -0/+7right, electric car running on power from a renewable grid.
        • flameboy, on 06/15/2008, -9/+1@spaniardhobo
          That analogy fails miserably
        • Jehutes, on 06/15/2008, -3/+0What you need to realize is that "reducing the problem significantly" is not a solution. It's simply a bandage over the wound but it won't prevent the wound from occurring in the first place. The same can be said for recycling things like aluminum, glass, and paper
        • Nereus90, on 06/15/2008, -2/+1Hydrogen vehicles and flexfuel vehicles are currently nonviable options. The fact is that we have an excellent alternative to gasoline-powered cars right now: electric vehicles. Hydrogen cars are only tools of distraction (they are far too expensive to produce), the auto manufacturers know that there is little chance of hydrogen cars ever becoming worthwhile. The oil companies and the auto industry are close friends. The oil companies do not want electric vehicles to become the dominant mode of transportation so they work with automobile companies to distract consumers from the most viable option and at the same time, attempt to make themselves look better by showing off all the work they do on hydrogen vehicles.
        • flameboy, on 06/15/2008, -2/+1To: The people digging up spaniardhobo and think his analogy is a good one

          Please give a little thought to exactly what he said. You are comparing drawing energy from a power grid to carrying multiple people on a bus. These concepts are in no way related. When you draw power from the grid there is less power there for everybody else; people carpooling on a bus are simply using the power they already have more efficiently.

          When you take electricity from the power grid, the power still has to come from somewhere. You have every American switch to rechargeable electric cars, our nation will have a serious energy crisis unless many new power sources were built (solar, nuclear, wind, etc)

          Also, have you electric proponents thought about the manufacture, storage, and disposal of the extremely powerful batteries needed to operate these cars? The manufacturing of batteries is a very energy-intensive process and disposing of them would also take energy. Not to mention that batteries are generally very environmentally unfriendly.

          Electric cars certainly do have their strong points, but they aren't the answer for our gas crisis.
        • flameboy, on 06/15/2008, -2/+1@Nereus90
          You failed to explain why you think flexfuel is not viable. Based on all my research, flexfuel is the best option we've got right now and is being used successfully in Brazil. It can use a BLEND of gasoline + biofuel + natural gas. It doesnt get much better than that for transitioning over to biofuel.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexfuel

          If the government mandated a FlexFuel requirement on all the manufacturers of American cars, the market forces would find the best possible biofuel solution.
        • Caffeinate, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1There is a valid reason why many people do not like the solution of "being on the bus with a lot of people". That is because when you become part of the faceless crowd repeatedly, and put your safety in someone else's hands as merely part of a group, you become another statistic. That is an unpleasant thought for many. I'd rather take my chances on a fuel efficient motorcycle, a bicycle, or the two feet I have than be relegated to living in a specific location due to lack of transportation. Not everyone wants to live in a colony on mass transit lines, and not everyone does, in any case. For those that do, that is great, but many of us don't and can't.
      • yourmightyruler, on 06/15/2008, -1/+14No. Any kind of ethanol from corn is insane. It drives up food prices, and isn't as efficient as gasoline. If you found a better sources of bio-ethanol (like sugar cane), then sure. But for now, we need to focus on electric vehicles.
        • flameboy, on 06/15/2008, -1/+1Biofuel from TRASH
          http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/08031 ...
        • Observer001, on 06/16/2008, -1/+3Uh, that's not really what's driving up the cost of food. It might be a factor, but it's a minor one compared to the effect of rising gas costs. The rising cost of fuel affects -everything- that has to be moved from place to place, and food needs to be moved from place to place.
        • flameboy, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1Indeed, but I think opponents of ethanol are saying it WOULD drive up food prices if we began using it as an alternative to gasoline.
        • Caffeinate, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Ethanol can easily be produced from corn, and sugar. Our physical health would be vastly improved by having significantly less of either in our diet. We are a society with a plague of diabetes, obesity and health problems because of it. If every person eliminated one soft drink from their diet a day, there would probably be enough sugar there to run an efficient method of personal transportation converted to ethanol.

          To be fair, I absolutely detest soft drinks, and drink only water, coffee with no sugar, and tea with no sugar and have done so all my life. Interestingly, though, I am 37 and have no health problems and don't take medication. My parents are in their late 70's, also do not take medication, still run their own business and regularly stun people when they find out their age. I firmly believe that longevity and good health is related to a lack of sugar in one's diet.
    • gregfadein, on 06/15/2008, -14/+9Yes, hydrogen cars.

      We totally need to switch from cars whose emissions—CO2—are the number two greenhouse gas to cars whose emissions—H2O—are the number ONE greenhouse gas.

      It totally makes sense.
      • Gene04, on 06/15/2008, -4/+7I dunno if I read that wrong but... are you implying that water is a greenhouse gas?
        • Gallowspoling, on 06/15/2008, -3/+8Since water vapour IS a greenhouse gas, I dont think he was implying, I think he was stating a fact
        • SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/15/2008, -2/+7Last I checked water vapour in the atmosphere is called "clouds" and when temperature fall below the dew point those clouds turn that vapour into liquid sometimes referred to as "rain."

          In short, your claim that we will fill the atmosphere with too many clouds is absurd.
        • Gene04, on 06/15/2008, -1/+3Lol, exactly my point Mr. Speed. Seems to be nobody else gets that fact.
        • MrPig, on 06/15/2008, -2/+2Water also houses a very large amount of heat. Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gases#Role ...

          Either way, moving away from CO2 would be positive. However, hydrogen powered cars make no sense. It costs more energy to create pure hydrogen (and therefore - in most cases - more CO2 (depending where the power comes from)) than the cars you would be converting would save.

          In other words, an immediate short-term solution would benefit our current situation more than a permanent solution that will take 50 years to become usable.
      • Jehutes, on 06/15/2008, -5/+1Yes, water vapor is actually the most dangerous greenhouse gas, then methane, then CO2
      • SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/15/2008, -3/+3Clouds: The green energy NIGHTMARE!

        /sarcasm
      • Jareth86, on 06/15/2008, -1/+3Did you actually write that with a straight face? You people are ***** daffy...
    • jackal42, on 06/15/2008, -6/+4HYDRO-GENY:
      GRATUITOUS AMOUNTS OF ENERGY
      KENYANS
      • darksideownedu, on 06/15/2008, -0/+9we could power our cars with PowerThirst (it's made with real lightning!)
    • vat0r, on 06/15/2008, -3/+19Electric Cars and Ultra efficient solar panels on every building in America. ***** this blood for oil ***** and the greedy ass bastards who exploit our troops patriotism so they can make insane amounts of what amounts to blood money. Sorry for the profanity but this ***** is insanity.
    • txtphile, on 06/15/2008, -3/+3Take a look at our ethanol program versus the Brazilian approach. Go ahead. Google is at yer fingertips. I'll wait.

      Be honest with yourself (if you actually went so far as to, at least, skim the first page of results). Are our anachronistic farm and fuel-efficiency policies causing problems? Dig me up if you'd lay even odds (or better) that it is. Billo is a douchebag, granted, but he's not stupid.

      Are there problems with ethanol? ***** yes. Land usage, the diesel problem, the fundamental differences between our economy and Brazil's. But if the putative goal is to break the back of OPEC, or to create a market-driven incentive to produce more American chemists and engineers, or simply to adapt to the reality of a finite petroleum supply...

      Well, if you were interested enough to get this far through my rant, make up your own mind :)
    • flameboy, on 06/15/2008, -4/+8NO. FLEXFUEL IS GOOD.

      FlexFuel appears to be the most promising technology in the works right now! FlexFuel vehicles can use a BLEND of any type of biofuel (including BUT NOT LIMITED to ethanol) combined with gasoline. This is the perfect technology to help us transition from gas to biofuel!

      Read up! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexfuel
    • Archica, on 06/16/2008, -2/+2Another scam is making ethanol out of corn. It isn't even worth it yet it is all you see in the MSM. Cellulosic ethanol is the real deal. Cellulose is one of the most abundant compounds in nature. If the govt wants to spend money on anything, it should be for the development and perfection of enzymes for ceetol production. Solar cells on houses instead of roofing shingles and electric cars that run on said ceetol and who the hell needs the middle east anymore?

      From Wikipedia:

      According to U.S. Department of Energy studies[2] conducted by the Argonne Laboratories of the University of Chicago, one of the benefits of cellulosic ethanol is that it reduces greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by 85% over reformulated gasoline. By contrast, starch ethanol (e.g., from corn), which most frequently uses natural gas to provide energy for the process, may not reduce GHG emissions at all depending on how the starch-based feedstock is produced.[3] A study by Nobel Prize winner Paul Crutzen found ethanol produced from corn, rapeseed (canola), and sugarcane had a "net climate warming" effect when compared to oil.[4]

      Start adopting safe Nuclear power and build a space elevator at Yucca mountain, plus another one on the Moon. Start ferrying the waste right off the damn planet, and then provide services so that the other 4 continents can do the same. It's all possible except for the fact that the lunatic right wingers think that we can kill Muslims, burn their oil and dictate how everybody should live for the rest of everyone's life. Hell, they even think Jesus wants them to be rich and that people used to ride dinosaurs like in the Flintstones. You have to vote any semblance of that kind of ignorance out of all aspects of congress in order to get the real work done.

      At least Obama spoke about ceetol on Meet the Press (RIP Tim Russert, from one Buffalo boy to another).
      • opmike, on 06/16/2008, -2/+3You can blame the "right wingers" for a lot of things. However, putting sole blame on them for us not having a ***** space elevator to ferry our trash to the damn moon is getting ridiculous. I think you are underestimating what all that would entail.
    • eudoxia, on 06/16/2008, -1/+1Hydrogen=too much energy to make=rolling bomb. Natural gas is the logical next step if we want something in the next 8 years. Its clean, plentiful and being thrown away, there is an infrastructure for delivery, and conversion of current vehicles is possible. Its not the answer but a first step
      • Caffeinate, on 06/20/2008, -1/+1You do realize that a "rolling bomb" means that it is highly exothermic, which means lots of energy, right? Fuel is in simple terms an exothermic reaction channeled to create movement. We want a fuel source that is capable of providing movement, we want a "rolling bomb" and on a small scale that is what happens every time you start your car and go down the road in it.

        The "rolling bomb" analogy can be applied to anything involving force, though it happens on a tiny scale, even a wristwatch.
  • Fangsinmybeard, on 06/15/2008, -68/+62O'Liely should take a gun to his mouth and pull the trigger on live broadcast to drive the point home that he lies to make people die. He is just as responsible for sending the our men and women of the armed forces over to Iraq as anybody. Let's just hope that Karl Rove will do the same.
    • JimmySpaza, on 06/15/2008, -33/+14Another compassionate liberal who loves tolerance and peace.
      /sarc
      • surfacewound, on 06/15/2008, -2/+4The fact that this comment is being dugg down illustrates its point perfectly.
      • Nitrodist88, on 06/16/2008, -1/+2Who says that liberals have to be compassionate? Wasn't it always "compassionate conservatism" in the 80's/90's?
    • 180andback, on 06/15/2008, -10/+34You know, that's a really ***** thing to say. You'd be hard-pressed to find many people who actually like Bill O'Reilly, but suggesting that he and Karl Rove ought to die violently on national television is kind of disgusting to me. Buried.
      • decx, on 06/15/2008, -5/+2disgusting as it is

        announce it a week before and the ratings will go through the roof :)
        • aptanalogy, on 06/15/2008, -2/+2It would make for great television ratings! I know I'd watch it...not sure why you're being dugg down, though.
      • mchugh22, on 06/15/2008, -6/+1***** you.
      • BalzacOG, on 06/15/2008, -6/+1He's right, those men should commit suicide.
        • 180andback, on 06/24/2008, -0/+2I hate them, too. You're a disgusting individual.
    • BalzacOG, on 06/15/2008, -5/+3You're right man.
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 06/15/2008, -1/+1I understand your frustrating very well, I feel it too. But you'll be doing yourself a favor if you save your posting for when you are more calm. Rant all you want, just don't rave. Ranting is perfectly acceptable, but when you rave, you hurt your credibility and therefore your cause.
      I try to tell myself this too, it's a work in progress.
    • loneraver, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1I don't think we will see another Budd Dwyer anytime soon.
      • 33PercentGod, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Unfortunately for the good of America and entertainment in general.
    • Dugout21, on 06/15/2008, -2/+2Don't forget Rumsfeld.
      http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20gen ...
  • plimpton777, on 06/15/2008, -18/+384You know, for a guy who looks like an elfin character from World of Warcraft, Kucinich sure has got some Brass Balls. And, if his wife is any indication, he's swingin the PVC pipe to match.

    If Ron Paul didn't run in the primaries, Dennis would have gotten my vote. Dugg for Kucinich's Brass Balls.
    • zebco, on 06/15/2008, -41/+3Did you just publicly suggest that Kucinich must have a big dick because he has a hot wife?
      Wow. I like the guy but his ***** and balls are something that I'd rather not think about, thanks.
      • cloak419, on 06/15/2008, -3/+23Lol, I was wondering why I had blocked you. Now I remember.
        • halfdirt, on 06/16/2008, -1/+2There needs to be a pay-version of blocking eh? One where you block a user, and it sends an email to them that you blocked them, and then you get emails of all their posts so you can remember why you blocked them. And maybe you get a big poster with the blocked user posing on a horse, and it's autographed.
      • plimpton777, on 06/15/2008, -4/+22Not only did you think about it, you literally typed, without coercion and of your own volition, "his ***** and balls." So stfu.
    • dexter411, on 06/15/2008, -17/+3I, too, would only waste my vote on Kucinich if the other guy I was wasting my vote on was unavailable.
      • SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2There is no such thing as a wasted vote.

        Well, not in America at least.
        • dexter411, on 06/16/2008, -0/+3Yes, and every little boy is special in his own way...
    • robbiemuffin, on 06/15/2008, -13/+2yeah he does. he's a good guy. I'm completely opposite from o'riely in almost every way, but I agree with him that kucinich is barking up the wrong tree here. it isn't that he is wrong, it is that it isn't pragmatic. but he's got heart and you vcan tell from miles away. he's awesome.
      • onestrawplz, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2who cares if it doesn't fit into your idea of pragmatism? the important thing is that he has the cajones to actually go through with it...he really has integrity, something that many other politicians are lacking.
        • robbiemuffin, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2no! you're right, that's important. :) he's excellent in that way.
    • ace429k, on 06/15/2008, -10/+11two thumbs up for the hot wife. America ***** up. we had a chance to have a woman for first lady whose hot!
    • robbiemuffin, on 06/15/2008, -4/+5yeah he does. he's a good guy. I'm completely opposite from o'riely in almost every way, but I agree with him that kucinich is barking up the wrong tree here. it isn't that he is wrong, it is that it isn't pragmatic. but he's got heart and you vcan tell from miles away. he's awesome.
      • darksideownedu, on 06/15/2008, -0/+4yeah, but there has to be some kind of ramification for bush's actions. He HAS to be brought to heel. It might be too little to late, but it will at least make others think twice before doing the kind of despicable ***** that bush has done.
    • darienphoenix, on 06/15/2008, -13/+4Buried for being a Ron Paul supporter.
      • Gene04, on 06/15/2008, -2/+5Buried for being a spineless douchebag who cares more about labels than actual issues.
      • plimpton777, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1Blocked and buried for being a douchebag!
      • plimpton777, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1Buried and blocked for being a douchebag.
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 06/15/2008, -1/+8While I did digg you up...."And, if his wife is any indication, he's swingin the PVC pipe to match." I feel just a little bit dirty now.
    • lisaawesome, on 06/15/2008, -5/+17Note to all the men out there: Kucinich is the kind of man many smart young ladies like myself are looking for.
      • Joshuarr, on 06/15/2008, -2/+12Yeah, I bet Kucinich would have clinched the nomination if it weren't for all the hot 22 year olds mobbing him all the time. That really put a dent in his liberal old jewish guy image.
        • lisaawesome, on 06/15/2008, -4/+3lol good one. I don't care if it's weird to everyone else but I see why his wife is into him. Some of us just like intelligent, outspoken, passionate, successful, old men! I look forward to finding the right old man for myself one day.
        • Joshuarr, on 06/15/2008, -1/+6What's not to like? Tell ya what - you stay young and beautiful and I'll call ya in 25 or 30 years.
    • txtphile, on 06/15/2008, -2/+7Dug for Kucinich's brass balls and plastic *****. And his beautiful wife, too.
    • sp1r1t, on 06/15/2008, -1/+7I think it's 'elven'.
    • siszam, on 06/15/2008, -3/+3Some women like moral, smart men. You don't have to reduce everything to caveman terms.
    • jhelmer, on 06/16/2008, -2/+4I don't get how someone can like both Ron Paul and Kucinich. Aside from their position on the war these two are polar opposites.
      • ChadN, on 06/16/2008, -1/+3They both seem like men of principle, and often that's enough. Since as president, rather than legislators, neither would have a chance in hell of getting their more radical ideas passed, its a matter of whether they would provide good leadership, and set an ethical example. They aren't so different in that respect.
  • life38, on 06/15/2008, -30/+7O'reilly is the type of media guy I hate and love all at the same time. Frustration and Surprise to the point of laughter.
    • Pyehole, on 06/15/2008, -3/+10I'm not even sure O'Reilly's mother could love him.
    • SQLserver, on 06/15/2008, -2/+11O'Reilly is the type of media guy I just hate.
  • Dzonatas, on 06/15/2008, -23/+7O'Reilly actually made a liberal agreement towards flex fuel vehicles... wow!
    We don't need *new* flex fuel vehicles... we need to convert older cars to flex fuel, and that is possible!
    We need *new* hybrids and electric vehicles.
    Other than that, the impeachment is not a waste of time as O'Reilly swindles it.
    • only1earth, on 06/15/2008, -0/+12Corn-based ethanol is an awful choice for a biofuel.
      • trumpydumpy, on 06/15/2008, -1/+4Yes, but hemp-based ethanol is a great choice for biofuel.

        www.hempcar.org
      • flameboy, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2Why does everybody think FlexFuel = Ethanol?
        FlexFuel is a technology that allows blended gasoline, natural gas, and BIOFUEL (including ethanol). Biofuel can be made out of biological matter including GARBAGE guys, anybody seen Back to the Future?
    • LupusDei, on 06/15/2008, -1/+0how would the impeachment help anything? If you have a single good reason as to what it would help, other than a stupid vendetta, then i will hear it gratefully
  • MarkusGarvey, on 06/15/2008, -39/+4I'm really disappointed in Kusinich...he had a real nice opportunity to rip bill'o to shreds...WTF Dennis?...
    • xtinamo, on 06/15/2008, -0/+16Were we watching the same clip? O'Reilly barely gave Kucinich the opportunity to speak, let alone tear him apart. Anyways, O'Reilly did a good enough job of making himself look like an ass without much help at all. Kucinich is a classy guy and didn't want to give O'Reilly an excuse to cut his mic off which would've ended the segment and further opportunity for Bill to parade his doucheness.
  • JohnnyKdiggs, on 06/15/2008, -17/+175That is the best video I've seen in a long time. Kucinich was able to provide a fair and compelling argument by simply being relaxed, rational, and insightful.

    O'Reilly, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be convincing anybody with his smug and biased pandering. ***** attitude sucks?
    • paradexes, on 06/15/2008, -4/+29Neo Cons like the anger. Makes them feel better about themselves. And it validates their fears which translates to anger. I see it all the time. People actually buy into Orly's shtick. People who watch FOX news and nothing else generally seem to be easily fooled by anger and the indignant attitudes that the talking heads there falsely portray. They accept the self righteous tones of we are better than liberals and we know it attitude, they play on fear to divide people further. By making up an enemy (what is more scary than an enemy at your doorstep (Terrorists or liberals), they maintain an ignorant and fearful audience.
      • shakbhaji, on 06/15/2008, -1/+2Gooood! Let the hate flow through you!
      • Iztikeit, on 06/15/2008, -1/+1The best part was how shocked (dennis) he was that Bill agreed with him on a single issue. He almost fell out of his chair.
      • catcher6250, on 06/16/2008, -1/+2 Fear Leads To Anger, Anger Leads To Hate, Hate Leads To Suffering.

        -Yoda
    • Gene04, on 06/15/2008, -0/+12Oh. Did you notice that when Kucinich brought up valid points, O'Reilly changed the topic? I LOL'd extensively when he kept trying to create some sort of a diversion from the very issue that he brought Kucinich on the show for.
      • pintomp3, on 06/15/2008, -0/+5o'reilly's only argument after kucinich brought up valid points was "it doesn't matter".
    • Zlorp, on 06/15/2008, -8/+2you would have praised Kucinich for his performance even if he showed up and danced around like an ape on the set. ***** tools
      • catcher6250, on 06/16/2008, -3/+1Actually,


        no.
      • TheLoneHoot, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1dude, where've you been? O'Reilly does that every night and we're not praising HIM.
    • Scaryclouds, on 06/16/2008, -0/+7WELL DO IT LIVE WELL DO IT ***** LIVE!
      • quisph, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2I love that comments like this are still getting dugg up. May it always be so.
    • TypeEE, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1Or many be Bill has convinced everyone who is still watching his show.
  • zebco, on 06/15/2008, -12/+82I love situations like this because it shows how clearly the only approach many republicans have is to go ***** nuts on people. They never attack the issues, never debate the facts...they just start yelling and acting all angry and hope that other republicans will be so entertained or get so lost that they just think, 'what the hell just happened?'
    It's the only trick O'Reilly has. He's not a very intelligent man. If he is, he hides it very, very, very well.
    • goon5000, on 06/15/2008, -19/+4that's funny, I have the same opinion about democrats
      • zspade, on 06/15/2008, -0/+4I don't feel this way about either democrats or republicans, but rather that people from either party can be jack asses like this at times.

        For instance, goon5000 and zebco
    • scubajim, on 06/15/2008, -17/+3Interesting as to how Kucinich didn't answer O'Reilly's questions about facts.
      • TheLoneHoot, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1Interesting as to how O'Reilly never gave him the chance, and kept changing the subject.
    • aptanalogy, on 06/15/2008, -1/+9Maybe it's the Chewbacca Defense...
    • Iztikeit, on 06/15/2008, -7/+0Well, if you're going to use that logic, the only approach most Democrats make is.......
    • ireland88, on 06/15/2008, -5/+4O'Reilly is far from being a true Republican.
      • flameboy, on 06/15/2008, -0/+13most republicans are far from being true republicans
    • enri, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2I think most people watch O'Reilly to see him 'nail that liberal elitist'. If they were really interested in debating on the facts or hearing opposing views they would watch Newshour.
    • koft, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2O'Reilly is a very intelligent man. He says and does exactly what he needs to do to get everybody talking about him and watching his crappy show. He's found his niche and he's exploiting the ***** out of it. People like O'Reilly do have a useful purpose and thats turning the label "Republican" into a curse word with the meaning, "arrogant, warmongering, *****". They managed to turn the word 'Liberal' into something of derision and now they're doing it to themselves to make a buck.
    • Parisjune, on 06/15/2008, -1/+4I'm a Republican and I'd love to debate you on the issues. I promise not to "go nuts". You'll need to swat-up on the Constitution because what's contained in that document are "the facts".

      O'Reilly isn't a Republican. He's a neo-con showman.
      • TheLoneHoot, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2Well your republican leader seems to think the constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper.
  • DiggLive, on 06/15/2008, -58/+11Personally, I'd rather watch O'Reilly than Keith "I Hate Bush" Olbermann. We ***** get it, Bush sucks. It gets old. I can't stand to watch MSNBC these days, it's gotten sickening. You also have Chris Matthews who needs some serious medication. Why do all the commentators on that channel seem like they're drugged or need to be? They all laugh like mental cases and can't even complete a sentence without laughing or smiling.

    Guest: "I was watching that Obama speech-"
    Matthews: "HA!!!"

    I'll stick to O'Reilly and Hannity and Colmes. News programs where they're actually sane. Let's not forget that the NBC stands for No Barack Criticism.
    • Coven, on 06/15/2008, -6/+23O'Reilly and Hannity...sane???

      Did you forget to take YOUR meds this morning?
    • jjason1985, on 06/15/2008, -4/+16It gets old? What the hell are you talking about? This guy should be in jail right now. Instead we are just worn out over how much of a failure Bush is. That is really sad that we as a nation have basically become numb to a criminal in the highest office.

      Hannity is a white supremecist and a closet homosexual who takes his self hate out on the world by spewing his vitriol. O'Reilly is without journalistic integrity or any kind integrity for that matter. That is why Faux Noise's reputation is in the toilet.

      Olbermann is the most honest man in journalism.

      p.s
      "terrorist fist jab"
    • sjm20k, on 06/15/2008, -3/+4maybe you should stop watching tv and form your own opinions.
    • orangefly, on 06/15/2008, -2/+4O'Reilly and Hannity are the worst on tv....you can actually look up half of what they say while you're watching and see it's just not true....
    • flameboy, on 06/15/2008, -2/+2I hate to break it to you, but your "sane" shows are basically lying to you every single episode. Most everybody has come to understand this - its no longer a debate.

      Maybe back in 2000 it was different, but now in 2008 its become clear that Fox News = garbage. It's fact. You are living under a rock my friend.
  • fishbeef33, on 06/15/2008, -12/+84The only way O'Reilly can deal with intelligence is with smugness and a snarky attitude. Unfortunately there's enough uneducated Americans who would rather let their gut do the thinking and think that O'Reilly's bulldog behavior is the way to go.

    O'Reilly didn't care about Dennis's reasons for impeachment or his ideas for fixing the gas crisis. He wanted to bring a Democrat on to try to make fun of him. Unfortunately he chose Kucinich, who was able to "logic" him out of his talking points.
    • Flashypoo, on 06/15/2008, -2/+3So you're saying there is a problem with gut thinking?

      I bet you read that in a book.
    • rambocommando, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1Yea it might just be me but O'RLY kinda sounds like a scientologist dealing with someone who is asking completely valid questions that he doesn't want to hear. He just brushes them off like their opinion couldn't be any further from the truth, telling him that he has no proof, when he actually does. Just listening to him pisses me off.
  • JimmySpaza, on 06/15/2008, -45/+11Even if Bill O'Reilly were to give Kucinich free air time without critique, you whiny liberals would complain about something.
    • Diderotten, on 06/15/2008, -5/+14Why?
      • didiman, on 06/15/2008, -16/+6Because whining is the only thing liberals do well.
        • flameboy, on 06/15/2008, -4/+9better than lying, killing, stealing, spurring economic disaster, starting wars, creating global instability, spying on US citizens, and pretty much hurting the country in every conceivable way.

          Hmm, i wonder why they whine so much?
    • babalukas, on 06/15/2008, -4/+4I did not know that reporters invited guests over so they could critique them.
    • wukillabee, on 06/15/2008, -5/+8haha thats almost as sad as 50 year old men that troll the political section of digg all day everyday, and also had an account banned! bwahhahahha

      FAIL!
    • sjm20k, on 06/15/2008, -3/+7you mean like you're whining right now?
      • haydesigner, on 06/16/2008, -2/+3Don't you DARE point out JimmySpaza's hypocrisy!
    • flashback99, on 06/15/2008, -3/+4How much does the Republican party pay you to spam digg?
      • JimmySpaza, on 06/15/2008, -4/+2None. I come here on my own volition. And do not assume that a critique of a liberal policy or stance means an approval of anything else.

        Do you ask if pro-liberal positions are funded by the Democrats?
    • flameboy, on 06/15/2008, -3/+4Even if Ahmadinejad surrendered his country, you warmongering republicans would still bomb him.
      • JimmySpaza, on 06/15/2008, -3/+2What does your rant have to do with the topic in the article? Nothing.

        1) You fail for not staying on topic.
        2) You fail for emotion-based whinage against Bush.
        3) You assume incorrectly that I'm a Republican.
        4) You assume incorrectly that I would want war with Iran.
        5) You wrongly assert that Iran's leader has the power to surrender his own country.

        How much more wrong can you get?

        At least you spelled Ahmadinejad's name somewhat accurately, depending on the language in use.
      • flameboy, on 06/15/2008, -2/+2Hahahahahaha
        My comment was crafted to point out the hypocrisy of your statement. You clearly didn't understand it, though. I feel sorry for you.
        • JimmySpaza, on 06/16/2008, -2/+2The point of your attempt to point out hypocrisy in me would only be valid if I was a Republican, wanted to go to war against Iran, and thought that Ahmadinejad had a lot of political power.

          Again, you fail on those accounts.
        • haydesigner, on 06/16/2008, -2/+3The point of his attempt to point out your hypocrisy was predicated on the assumption that you had a brain capable of an independent thought.

          THAT is where he failed.
    • sagien, on 06/16/2008, -2/+2I'm beginning to think that JimmySpaza just drops these inane comments for the attention.
      • JimmySpaza, on 06/17/2008, -1/+1If all I wanted was attention from the liberals in Diggland, then I'd say something about how Obama is transforming the political landscape, taking honesty and new ideas to the next level, and...well, you get the idea. It would be bullcrap; but, it would get kudos from the libs here.

        Nah! I'll just stick to telling it like it is.
        • sagien, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1Shrug, sometimes it just seems to me like you like being contrary for the sake of being contrary.
        • JimmySpaza, on 06/17/2008, -1/+1@sagien

          I really don't mean to be contrary simply for the sake of being contrary.

          It's just that most Digg users have liberal ideologies. I don't. So, when I comment, it appears that I am always opposing someone's viewpoint.
  • DeviateSeptum, on 06/15/2008, -12/+45O'Reilly is such a *****. I'm just glad another one of his attack pieces backfired on him and he came out looking like the shallow loud-mouth that he is. Every time Dennis started saying something interesting he got cut-off with some tangent distracting statement from the bully Bill. What ever happened to real political debate in this country? The kind where you *want* to understand an opposing point of view? I think it's time that a boycott FOX's sponsors is organized. I would definitely join that.
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 06/15/2008, -1/+5"What ever happened to real political debate in this country? The kind where you *want* to understand an opposing point of view?
      Do the math from the other direction. The answer is a known. The distribution of wealth and power is very skewed and has been so for some time with little change. Those in power are in the position to stay in power. They actively do whatever they can to prevent honest debate by owning controlling interests in Media corps.

      Also, people who think they are right, like the Christian Right, feel no need to listen as there is no more "truth" for them to find. They have all that they need. And so why defend anyone's rights "when you are right and they are wrong"?
    • siszam, on 06/15/2008, -2/+1If you haven't been boycotting Fox and it's advertisers for years you've been doing it wrong.
  • MattNF, on 06/15/2008, -23/+243***** BILL O'REILLY
  • fatherdaly, on 06/15/2008, -34/+12I love Bill O'Reilly

    /non-conformist
    • theblt, on 06/15/2008, -0/+7If by non-conformist you mean non-conformist here on Digg. The O'Reilly Factor consistently gets higher viewer numbers than all of the other cable news shows combined during that time slot.
    • sjm20k, on 06/15/2008, -1/+3i imagine that must be like how UFC fighters sort-of like the thrill being kicked in the head.
  • grungegbunny, on 06/15/2008, -8/+94He wouldn't let Kucinich talk about the impeachment. O'Reilly just said it wasn't going anywhere and now lets talk about gas prices. What was the point?
    • Rocketbird, on 06/15/2008, -1/+4Well as much as I hate him, it's true. It's NOT going anywhere.

      I suppose it is sort of a catch-22 though, because part of the reason it's not going anywhere is because it hasn't gotten any press time.
      • flameboy, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2its not going anywhere because there isnt enough time.
        but those 35 articles need to be on the record. they need to be there for the future of our country, when we look back historically and learn from our mistakes.
      • SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/15/2008, -0/+3It's an issue of principles. It is not the point for it to "go somewhere."
    • DesertDude, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1This is why O'Reilly (and all of Fox "News" for that matter) is on the air: politicians (etc.) recognize them and keep giving them the time of the day.
  • chicoer2001, on 06/15/2008, -18/+4Three words why we should have an impeachment: President Richard Cheney.
    • Pyehole, on 06/15/2008, -1/+3That's why we should impeach Cheney first.
  • Lindz2000, on 06/15/2008, -14/+52As an English man I watch these things and am amazed at the total ignorance of people like O'Reily. If the American people are unhappy about anti-American sentiment in most of the world, they need look no further than these belligerent a**holes. Impeach the lot I say. Let em fry.
    • cplusplus, on 06/15/2008, -2/+8Hopefully you understand that he's just one man. And most Americans are very reasonable.
      You have your on-air blowhards too, I'd assume.
      • youareretarded, on 06/15/2008, -2/+3The problem isn't that Americans aren't unreasonable, the problem is that they aren't educated on various political subjects.

        No or little education for the the masses means those in power have free reign.
        • flameboy, on 06/15/2008, -1/+5The problem is that the big companies that own American media have been deceiving Americans and stifling debate.
        • youareretarded, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2True, if your only source of information is from the media and you take their information word for word.
        • Scaryclouds, on 06/16/2008, -0/+3The problem is we Americans use too many double negatives.
          What youareretarded said when corrected for double negative:
          "The problem is Americans are unreasonable"
          What he (likely) meant to say:
          "The problem isn't Americans are unreasonable"
        • youareretarded, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1Whoops, I totally missed that, thanks;)
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 06/15/2008, -1/+3Both of our countries have a lot of work to do, certain.
    • thecatcantalk, on 06/15/2008, -1/+3The fact that the U.S. is geographically enormous and extraordinarily diverse, that's a major cause of our ill-informed populace. Seriously, I'm sure that if one went to a small town on the eastern edge of China, or Russia, and asked a few locals about current political events at the opposite end of that country, they'd have a hard time telling you anything much. Same goes for the States. I imagine it's easier to stay well-informed if one lives in a relatively small island nation, like the U.K., wouldn't you say?

      And then again, half the human population scores below 100 on a Stanford-Binet I.Q. test....that's what makes it a bell curve, no? There's never been any shortage of fools, in any country.

      Bill O'Reilly is a national embarrassment, though, you're certainly right about that. And that son-of-a-bitch in the White House has got to go...with him in office, it's as if we're a British colony again, with Mad King George at the helm: warrantless spying on citizens, governmental kidnapping, torture, dear God, it's like being ruled by the English. What could be worse?
      • Lindz2000, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0Believe me, it has nothing to do with the size of the country. Even though I now live is Spain, I can assure you that, although the news reports in England are slightly less 'censored' than what I have seen stateside, they are still tailored to fit the governments ends. Fortunately we now have this wonderful medium for unbiased communication and healthy debate. In closing you ask "What could be worse?" I'll leave you to answer that one.
  • colincornaby, on 06/15/2008, -13/+36Wow, Colbert really does sound like O'Reilly. :p
  • TBITS, on 06/15/2008, -12/+46Dennis is one hell of a man I hope he is VP.
    • leahcim, on 06/15/2008, -2/+4Great idea, just throw away all chances Dems have at winning this year.
    • Jo9100, on 06/15/2008, -1/+6People of US are not ready for someone this progressive. It's too much for them, unfortunately.
    • asdfkane, on 06/15/2008, -1/+3I was thinking secretary of labor.
    • TheBigBlueShoe, on 06/16/2008, -1/+2Yes. Let's all pretend that Obama is a real progressive and would actually appoint someone to match all his 'change' rhetoric.
    • WhynotThink, on 06/16/2008, -1/+1I am from Ohio, where we elected Kucinich Mayor of Cleveland, then as our representative to congress, he is a "nutcase". Ever hear him talk about his alien encounter?
  • pianomahnn, on 06/15/2008, -13/+31The unfortunate thing about all of this is those who actually watch Fox News, who get their information from Fox News, will be unchanged. They will retain their ignorance. They're idiots, after all. :-/
  • wang1011, on 06/15/2008, -19/+12As frustrating as O'Reilly is to watch, he does have a good point in that Kucinich needs more evidence if this impeachment is to go anywhere
    • grungegbunny, on 06/15/2008, -7/+6Are you ***** me?
    • thestranger, on 06/15/2008, -3/+6No Kucinich doesn't need evidence really, but during the impeachment trial is when someone needs evidence.
    • paradexes, on 06/15/2008, -4/+4Umm...where the ***** have you been cooped these last 8 years? Hell I even know conservatives who want to see Bush impeached.
      • thatsmyaibo, on 06/15/2008, -2/+1Your statement does not support hard evidence that could successfully impeach Bush. By time the impeachment process is over he will be out of office anyways. Taxpayer money should go to better things at the moment.
  • itsthebrod, on 06/15/2008, -17/+211I lol'd when O'Reilly said America is winning the war...
    • goon5000, on 06/15/2008, -29/+4Newsflash, we already won.
      • itsthebrod, on 06/15/2008, -3/+24Oh you're right I forgot. "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!"
      • xt0xicx, on 06/15/2008, -2/+19do you live in a cave?
      • str1fe, on 06/15/2008, -3/+16If we won already, why are we still there?
        • thatsmyaibo, on 06/15/2008, -4/+3We won in WW2 and still have people in Germany.

          Iraq is a "war" we really can't win and is a "war" I don't support but we will have people there long after the violence dies down so your comment doesn't make too much sense.
        • flameboy, on 06/15/2008, -2/+3we are shipping injured soldiers there. us troops are still dying. the families want their men and women home. and most importantly, we cant AFFORD to keep them there.

          have you paid any attention to our economy or country as a whole?
        • SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/15/2008, -1/+3But we won in Germany...
          I also don't think you quite understand the role of the the soldiers stationed in Germany after the war.
      • Delphium226, on 06/15/2008, -1/+2Please list the conditions that have been met that mean we've won the war. Of course you can't, all you have is dumbass sloganeering with no actual substance to back up your stunted thinking.
    • paradexes, on 06/15/2008, -4/+21Oh he was not talking about the Iraq war....or the one in Afghanistan...or even the war on drugs, he was talking about....umm what war was he talking about? hmm. we are losing all of them cause we have a tactical ***** as a president who has opted to spread our forces thin. It makes it much harder to win anything.
      • KingGorilla, on 06/15/2008, -0/+7I think he was talking about the war on logic or maybe rationality
      • tehsuck1, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1Its not that our forces are spread too thin as much as the fact that we are fighting wars with no clearly defined purpose or way to even win.
    • slightlygifted, on 06/15/2008, -9/+9obviously were winning but the war itself is pointless.
      • youareretarded, on 06/15/2008, -2/+11If the war is pointless then what is it that we are winning?
      • asdfkane, on 06/15/2008, -0/+4Seriously? Winning? Against who?!? By what standard?!?! Where is this "war" of which you speak!??!!?! Do you mean the INVASION and OCCUPATION?!? interrobang interrobang....
    • xtmno3, on 06/15/2008, -2/+14Hooray, go US Armed Forces for being able to win wars we shouldn't be in! Why not start a war on Europe for fun? As long as we end up winning the war, O'Reilly seems fine with it.
    • identitymatrix, on 06/15/2008, -3/+14What's happening in Iraq is more of an occupation than war, and when you use that word instead, O'Reilly sounds even more absurd:
      America is winning the occupation
    • logicalriot, on 06/16/2008, -2/+2amen brother.
    • rambocommando, on 06/17/2008, -1/+1I'm kind of surprised that you can win a "war" against something that isn't even a noun. Who knew you could declare war on terror, let alone win a war on terror, thats pretty damn amazing. That's like declaring war on learning. Wait, never mind bush did that too.
  • svensko, on 06/15/2008, -7/+12The idea of getting tax credits for buying American-made economic vehicles would seriously make me consider owning one.

    I wonder how many others feel this way? This alone would probably turn the big 3 from a suffering pile of goons to being staples in the automotive market.
    • Visual77, on 06/15/2008, -3/+6Yeah, but it would also be a crutch to a few companies who need to make better vehicles rather than be artificially supported by their government. Protecting American interests at the sacrifice of advancing the automotive industry is a bad idea. They need incentive to make a better product that we would be willing to buy, and if that requires some heavy financial bleeding, so be it.
    • goon5000, on 06/15/2008, -8/+3wrong, as long as the big 3 let the unions bleed them dry they won't have the ability to put out any quality product
    • morcheeba, on 06/15/2008, -2/+3Buying an american car is tricky... which of these do you think qualifies?

      The Chevy Aveo (made by daewoo in south korea, designed in the UK) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Aveo
      A Volvo (made in Sweden, but owned by ford) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_Cars#Production ...
      BMW X5 (made in Sparanburg, SC, designed in germany) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_Manufacturing_Co. ...
      • flameboy, on 06/15/2008, -1/+1Are you suggesting that people think BMWs are American cars?
        • morcheeba, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1Well, they seem more American than the Aveo. What I'm suggesting is that it's tricky.
      • hangman16, on 06/15/2008, -0/+4Honda Civic (built in Ohio, designed in Ohio - the 2 door anyways)
      • svensko, on 06/15/2008, -0/+3Might as well include the Toyota Camry. Built in America as well.

    • perogi21, on 06/15/2008, -1/+3Sounds like corporate socialism to me...
  • LZeppelinJ0, on 06/15/2008, -14/+4Obligatory "***** thing sucks" comment?
  • kathysartcom, on 06/15/2008, -8/+28O'Reilly trying to hear only his own voice again. Why interview people if you only want to hear yourself talk? Kucinich looking good despite him though.
  • Clark1984, on 06/15/2008, -13/+7"I introduced a windfall profit tax that would stop oil companies in their tracks." That would really reduce oil prices Dennis. Lets stop them in their tracks.

    I work in the oil industry and having learned a lot about the energy market over the last four years its amazing to see how ignorant politicians and society as a whole is on the issue. It makes me wonder if they are ignorant on just about everything else. Flexfuel O'Reilly? Lets put more energy into growing a fuel then we actually get out of it. Then have the government subsidize the product and the pump and subsidize the farmers to grow it. Free market.
    • robbiemuffin, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1lolz. yeah, that was unfortunately phrased, wasn't it?
    • goon5000, on 06/15/2008, -1/+3A tax on the oil companies = a tax at the pump. And how the hell can they rationalize a "windfall profit tax"?? WTF? Is the government a for-profit entity?
      • flameboy, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Think about the words: Tax on PROFIT

        If they raise prices to compensate they will just get taxed more.
        • jamesmon01, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1income tax is essential a tax on your personal profit. It doesn't stop you from trying to make more money. Any percentage tax on profit will still result in higher prices. If they raise prices they will certainly be taxed more, but they can also cover that loss with enough additional income to bring their profits back to equilibrium
        • flameboy, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1I do see your point.
          I think the issue can become complicated depending on exactly how the taxation is carried out. Without the mathematical formula that will be used, it would be hard to know for sure.

          If congress would mandate FlexFuel compatible car production it would give the consumer the power of choice and the free market would kick in allowing for numerous alternative fuel sources. If they did this, there would be no need to tax oil companies because there would be competition.
    • cypherignite, on 06/15/2008, -1/+4I work in the oil and gas industry on the state government side and the best thing about the windfall profits tax was the phrase "unreasonable profits." The government always wants to define what is just and reasonable. Who decided that the government can determine reasonableness better than the market? Why not just go all Venezuela and nationalize the industry in the US?
      • sealink, on 06/15/2008, -3/+0Y HELO THAR STANDARD OIL
      • Matt2k, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2Agreed. If they charge too much, their profits will fall. They provide one of the most crucial energy sources and are compensated accordingly. Don't like the price? Work towards a solution.

        Government has no role in dictating the relative success of a company or singling companies for being "too" successful beyond, maybe, antitrust regulation.
    • sealink, on 06/15/2008, -1/+1It continues the trend of this administration ignoring anything to do with science. The science behind creating biofuels is awesome, but we do NOT need to use food crops as feedstock. That way lies madness and really expensive Doritos.
    • sealink, on 06/15/2008, -2/+0This administration wants nothing to do with science or technology and has continually cut funding for science over and over. The idea behind biofuels is AWESOME, but we absolutely CANNOT use food crops as feedstock.

      Most large oil companies are already beginning the transition from petroleum companies to energy companies, and this means ensuring their future financial situation. They know as well as anyone that traditional crude sources are being exhausted, and even the innovative partnerships between geologists and engineers can only squeeze so much oil from shale.
    • flameboy, on 06/15/2008, -1/+2Why does everybody think FlexFuel = Ethanol?
      FlexFuel is a technology that allows blended gasoline, natural gas, and BIOFUEL (including ethanol). Biofuel can be made out of GARBAGE guys, anybody seen Back to the Future?
      • DevilInPgh, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2Yeah, I did, and it STILL didn't work in 1885, because the DeLorean required GASOLINE for the engine to run.
        • flameboy, on 06/15/2008, -1/+1Poor guy, you must have missed the end of the movie?
          It was called Mr. Fusion
          http://images.wikia.com/bttf/images/f/f2/Refueling ...
        • DevilInPgh, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2Poor guy, you didn't watch BTTF III.

          Doc Brown: You mean we're out of gas?
          Marty: Yeah, its no big deal, we got Mr. Fusion.
          Doc Brown: Mr. Fusion powers the time circuits and the flux capacitor; the internal combustion engine runs on ordinary gasoline, it always has. There's not going to be a gas station around here until sometime next century. Without gasoline, we can't get the DeLorean up to 88 miles per hour.
        • flameboy, on 06/16/2008, -1/+1Damn. You got me :(
    • Fordi, on 06/16/2008, -2/+1Yeah. Apparently, Bill didn't get the message about foodcrop-based fuels being a generally bad idea.
  • wissler, on 06/15/2008, -7/+12The story is about impeachment but O'Reilly spends the whole time talking about oil (a subject Kucinich knows nothing about)? Dishonest journalism. Clearly the story was about impeachment, and the reasons behind it. Most of congress and the American people already agree on the oil subject (hint: when the majority agree that the world is flat, maybe you'd better consider that the truth is something else), there's no story there. But every time Kucinich tried to explain O'Reilly cut him off. Just totally dishonest.
    • why3th, on 06/15/2008, -1/+1O'Reilly is not a journalist, and as such not subject to the call to be fair and balanced. People watch him because his views are the same as theirs, not because of his journalistic talent.
    • majestichazard, on 06/16/2008, -2/+2Actually I'd say Kucinich seems to know quite a bit about oil. But you're right about the rest of it.
  • sb66, on 06/15/2008, -4/+29"Bill O'Reilly and Kucinich, together again" ROFL.


    • funkyloki, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Together at last, not again, that's what he said.
      Ands it's still funny
    • swrostmore, on 06/15/2008, -0/+4Am I wrong or was O'Reilly's studio staff audibly lolling?
  • SpookyPig, on 06/15/2008, -12/+21Edit: ***** comment sucks
    • funkyloki, on 06/15/2008, -2/+3No, you have to say it like O'Rielly. ***** COMMENT SUCKS! WE'LL DO IT LIVE!
      • halfdirt, on 06/16/2008, -2/+1See, in my view SpookyPig was being dumb and Funkyloki was -making fun- of SpookyPig by being even dumber. It was intentional, and it works on several levels. Diggs for Funkyloki!
        • SpookyPig, on 06/16/2008, -1/+1In my view, SpookyPig posted a comment he decided sucked initially and used the widely known and hilarious O'Riley quote. Then funkyloki (loki just happens to be SpookyPig's cat's name) added his input onto it, though kinda failed at it.. Then comes along halfdirt unknowing to any of this apparently, and praises funkyloki for making a mistake.

          Winner: SpookyPig
          Loser: Everyone else.
  • SaperKain, on 06/15/2008, -12/+11O’Reilly is an animal that shouldn’t be allow to live among civilized people. I bet fox news execs keep him in the cage down in the basement.
  • thestranger, on 06/15/2008, -9/+188Why do I still get excited when O'Reily has an interested guest?

    It always goes the same way:

    Bill spins the reason why they are the show.



    Person defends their position

    Bill says it doesn't matter why they are there either way they are wrong

    person talks for 30 seconds

    Bill gets them off track

    Person talks off subject

    Bill interrupts

    Person spends rest of the time trying to get back on subject

    Bill interrupts before end of every sentence

    Person tries to get last word

    Hit the music and Bill "closes" discussion by talking louder and playing music louder

    Nothing said or accomplished.
    • matroosje, on 06/15/2008, -2/+41You forgot that he starts counting, beginning with his pinkie
      • thestranger, on 06/15/2008, -0/+23ha I did forget that....

        I noticed it, but as soon as I read it, "I was like yea he does that everytime and I forgot to list it."

        dugg for being more aware of Bill's ridiculous "interviewing" style.
    • sonic911, on 06/15/2008, -0/+6"Nothing said or accomplished."

      Kind of like the war in Iraq?
    • korupture, on 06/16/2008, -0/+3aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand scene.
    • sagien, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1I agree. I almost didn't watch this video because I knew it would sicken me.

      I turned it off about halfway, pretty sure that I didn't miss anything.
  • PinkChicken, on 06/15/2008, -4/+7O'Reilly references bad guys in oil companies. He's all tough but doesn't have the balls to call out names.
    We need Kucinich to call out Bush is because we can't trust anyone else to. The same people who say Kucinich is wasting his time used to say Obama was wasting his.
  • trumpydumpy, on 06/15/2008, -9/+45***** IT!
    GET THOSE BAD GUYS!
    WE'LL DO IT LIVE!
  • Stryder81, on 06/15/2008, -13/+8Bill did his job on this one. He completely muzzled Dennis by diverting him to talking about Oil.

    Bastard lol
    • why3th, on 06/15/2008, -2/+1Why dugg down? It's what O'Reilly did, it's what he always does with "Liberal" or "Democratic" guests. Nothing is ever accomplished on his show.
  • lazerus9, on 06/15/2008, -11/+3I didn't know that Oh'Really still had a show!
  • spamcrusher, on 06/15/2008, -1/+13"I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction," he added. "We would once again, rather than attending to the people's business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, non-stop circus." - Senator Barack Obama, July 2007. Obama does not support impeachment of Bush and/or Cheney.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-28 ...
    • Elderon, on 06/15/2008, -1/+8This isn't some petty tit for tat as he put it, situation. Some of the allegations if they chose to investigate are quite serious. I think it's that mentality of not wanting to rock the boat that helped lead us down this path of government abuses and corruption because everyone is too busy looking the other way. It might be just me, but in my mind that quote you posted kinda reminds me of someone saying something like " well sure he's a murderer and we got him on film killing someone, but if we press charges it will just bring bad feelings to the people involved."

      Obama seems like a decent guy, but how is he gonna fix our dysfunctional Washington if he's not willing to put his foot down and show them that there are rules and breaking those rules has consequences. Even for the president.
    • majestichazard, on 06/16/2008, -1/+1I agree that impeachment is not acceptable. The entire Bush Administration needs to be dragged kicking and screaming out of office and publicly tarred and feathered and put in stocks for the remainder of Bush's term.
  • PRlME, on 06/15/2008, -7/+43O'Reilly defense for the lies about the war is "We are winning the war". Sooooo if I pick a stranger out on the street and start beating them to death its ok cause I'm winning.
  • trumpydumpy, on 06/15/2008, -12/+6***** IMPEACHMENT SUCKS!
    • Albumen, on 06/15/2008, -2/+7No, lying, planting propaganda agents in the press corps, ignoring the clear lack of evidence of Iraqi involement with Al Qaeda and 9/11 is what sucks. Impeachment is the stick that keeps Presidents from acting like kings. Bush and his administration think they are above the law and don't need to follow anyone's rules but their own. It's a very disruptive and divisive process, especially when its based on a partisan agenda. In this case however there is hard evidence to back up the case for impeachment. They should go forward with it.
      • trumpydumpy, on 06/15/2008, -1/+2Sorry, I forgot the "O'Reilly: " at the beginning. I'm all for impeachment, I was just trying to make fun of O'Reilly.
  • IpsoPhatso87, on 06/15/2008, -3/+112I love how Bill yelled for Kucinich to produce the "smoking gun" and he'd be on board... but when Dennis tried to read from a report that is just some of his evidence for the impeachment, Bill shut him up... I wish he'd cut his own mic sometimes.
  • jonnyboy1544, on 06/15/2008, -13/+2Isn't that the guy from Little People, Big World?
  • Sherman901, on 06/15/2008, -8/+16christ, i hate you o' reilly with a passion. the guy is so ***** arrogant and ignorant
  • sx66gns, on 06/15/2008, -11/+5What happened to the good ol' days when ***** like this got shot?
  • T8erT0T, on 06/15/2008, -9/+6Billy O'Reilly needs to fall into an open manhole and be left there to die. He can film his show from the manhole until he perishes though. It would definitely help the ratings.
  • Hrag, on 06/15/2008, -10/+21Jesus H Christ what a ***** dick.

    I wish we could impeach incompetent, smug, misinformed, ridiculous TV news hosts.
    • JesusHimself, on 06/15/2008, -3/+9Did you call my child?
      • majestichazard, on 06/16/2008, -1/+4Yes. Can you do something about Bill O'reilly, please?
    • sparrowkc, on 06/16/2008, -1/+2You want to remove members of the media that you disagree with? Really?
  • buckybadger, on 06/15/2008, -4/+4Orally and Kucinich double teaming this energy problem sounds like a pretty good idea actually. Both should get their supporters and their base energized to enact real change.

    Regarding the impeachment discussion, we knew it would go down like that so no surprise there. But lets move together where we have common ground for Pete sake!
  • GIScope, on 06/15/2008, -8/+9O'Reilly is .. ooh ***** it, I am not even gonna waste my time characterizing that *****.
    It's not going to go anywhere? They'd said the same exact thing about slavery but it hadn not kept good men and women from fighting. All I know Mr. *****'Reilly, there has to be justice and that justice gonna fall on Bush and his administration one day, and all those who applauded their war crimes. You included.
  • LinuxSmooth, on 06/15/2008, -7/+8Can he let the man talk!? dayyymmmmm
  • DavidThaGnome, on 06/15/2008, -4/+3If I was able to get away with the kind of question at hand deflection Bill O'Reilly and most of the mainstream media enjoy, in my day to day life, I'm quite sure my personal development would have been severely arrested at the age of five years old.
  • unclejohn32, on 06/15/2008, -7/+29Even Fox's picture of Bush is an old one from before he went all gray and wrinkly, they're working their game on every level.
    • iiiears, on 06/16/2008, -1/+1The answer to the fuel crisis is in part Flex fuel ..AND.. mandated 35 mpg vehicles. - Too painful for the gas guzzling SUV driving americans even for your empty suit politicos to talk aboout?
      I THOUGHT SO!!!!!!!!!
      Drill for oil in ANWR your last real strategic reserve.
      Go ahead and bomb Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon in another futile attempt to give Democracy to the world at the point of a gun, what could go wrong?
      I salute your high ideals with an extended middle finger.
      • Ravatar, on 06/16/2008, -1/+2Mandated 35mph vehicles will only result in hybrid plug-in flex fuel SUVs pulling in 35 mpg. That technology should bring cars to 60mpg+.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 140 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.