Bill O'Reilly and Hillary Clinton

Geez, O’Reilly yaks about Hillary so much you’d think the two of them were married or having an affair together.

But if that were the case the universe would spontaneously combust.

Once again, O’Reilly has reverted to his better known self O’ Lielly. In his Most Ridiculous Item of the Day for monday, the 13th, Bill once again shills for his new book.

He says that his goal was to sell 100 copies more of his book then Hillary does of hers.


It’ll never happen, even if they are stacked 50 deep on the remainder tables, but hey, it’s nice to have an impossible dream.

O’Lielly then says that after 4 months on the market, there are around 1,600,000 copies of Hillary’s book in print.

Not copies sold.

Copies in print.

Bill then says that after 2 1/2 weeks there are about 900,000 copies of his book in print.

Which is fine.

Good for him.

I’m sure he’s orgasmic and has no doubt punished the bunny at least 4 times thinking of all of the trees that have been destroyed to make paper for his new book.

But then, O’Lielly comes leaping out.

He says, "Those are just – those are not sales. Those are not sales, I should say, just copies out there. Sales figures are audited and when we get those figures we’ll tell you."

Ah, Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill.:wally :wally :wally :wally

It was reported a little less then a month ago that Hillary had sold enough copies of her book to enable Harper Collins to get their advance back and for Hillary to start collecting royalties. It was reported as well that she had sold over 1,000,000 copies, I believe the figure was 1.1 million.

And that was copies sold.

Not in print.


Oh, and your continued blustering over how you acted towards Terry Gross just shows what a mysogyistic PigFucker you really are.


…and the best part is he got you to watch his show, quote his show, and talk about his book.

FAIR just slammed him good recently too: pointing out that, his comments to the contrary, the LA Times DID do an article on Clinton’s misdeeds with women. O’Reily dismissed it as not probing or negative enough to compare to the Arnold story, despite the Arnold story having exactly the same sort of qualifications and words from the other side that the Clinton story had. Even if not, he was still caught dead wrong, and he couldn’t admit it.

Ohhhhh, a slam from FAIR! How will O’Reilly be able to sleep at night?


Acording to the current NY Times Best Seller List, O’Reilly has already fallen to number two in his second week behind…guess who…Al Franken. :smiley:

He can’t come closing to matching Hillary in actual units scanned (as opposed to units "sold’ which includes pre-orders to bookstores which may or may not ever be bought by customers…not that it matters. Hillary’s units scanned figures are still bigger that O’Reilly’s total copies in print numbers. he’s nowhere close to outselling her).

He will never mention the sales figures again on his show, regardless of what he claims he will “report.” he never acknowledges embarraing information.

Probably about as well as he sleeps after anyone else points out his inaccuracies. He seems to be pretty immune to self-reflection, so I doubt he’s in bad shape.

Jesus, what a lame fucking comeback. Do you actually have a rebuttal to the factual inaccuracies found by FAIR? How is their criticism illegetimate exactly?

FAIR is a self-proclaimed activisit organization. I know their name is deceptive and all, but don’t be so gullible. A dipshit may take their spewings as fact, I do not.

Ad hominem doesn’t make it any less true that O’Reily droned on about how the LA Times would never do a story on CLINTON like that, and, in fact, they did.

You bloated pus-pimple.

Their political alliance is irrelevant here. They either have their facts right or they don’t. Do you actually have a factual rebuttal to their exposure of O’Reilly’s inaccuracies? What did FAIR say about O’Reilly’s book that isn’t true? Be specific.

I am perfectly happy disregarding anything that such a partisan source sees fit to ‘print’. You want to back up FAIR’s claims? You do it.

Once again, Brutus reveals himself to be the shining beacon of truth, willing to disregard any facts that upset his predetermined world-view. Hey, wait a minute… that makes him a perfect candidate for a position in the Bush adminstration! A total lack of intellectual curiosity seems to be one of the prerequisites for a Cabinet post under this miserable excuse for a chief executive. Brutus would fit right in.

You’re the one making the assertion, moron. You know how it works on this board. You have suggested that the FAIR review is somehow dishonest but you have failed to provide a single reason why. If you are unable to do so I will simply assume that you are a gutless, sniping crybaby with no argument and no ammunition. Your boy O’Reilly got punked out by FAIR. Deal with it, bitch.

Sorry. That last post was addressed to Brutus, not Early Out.

Hey Brutus, I just remembered. You never did tell me your latest reason for why my cite in that FOX thread was bullshit. In fact, IIRC, when Desmo saved the day by showing you the source for that cite’s cite, your response was… silence…

Hi, Weird With Words, meet Brutus, arguably the most mindlessly partisan conservative on this board. What he lacks in intellect he makes up for in sheer loathsomeness. You may have noticed that your dad, who is never one to shy away from a scrap with a “tighty righty” rarely bothers to waste his time with Brutus. There’s a reason for that.

Welcome to SDMB, btw.

I know, I know. I kinda figured that out when he began to suggest that my cite ( may have been lying outright when they quoted the NYT. I just grew up with this ridiculous notion that one day I might come up with The Perfect Argument, and it would travel the world-over like a virus, converting everyone it touches. I’ve since learned that even a nigh god-like speaker would probably only win over about one tenth of the population, if that.

But that doesn’t mean I’ll stop trying. Besides, there’s no better way for a beginner to practice his kung-fu than against an unmoveable board.

Speaking of which…

<turns to Brutus and lunges forward, using his “Slippery Tiger Rebuttal”>


Hmmm… I think “Hiyah!” sounds too much like a greeting, now Brutus just looks confused.

How 'bout, “Heeeeeeeeyah, motherfucker!”

Damn. Just not feelin’ it.

Maybe I’ll do some reading, or a little I’ll come back when I’ve refilled my outrage vectors.

Ok, I gotta ask.

Do you also disregard the partisan source of O’reily and Hannity?

And who is it that has the objective info, in your opinion?

How about “Hai-Keebah!” It always worked for Joel and the Bots.