Bill O'Reilly is Completely Dishonest

[Unabogie]

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/oreilly-v-coburn-the-evidence-fox-news-does-claim-youll-go-to-jail-video.php?ref=mp

So he gets on TV and claims that he checked through the FOX archives and no one, EVER, EVER said that the new health care law mandated jail time on his "news" channel.

Please, watch that mashup. Has there ever been a more dishonest news organization? Hearst? The libels in old England?

Anyone care to defend this? First off, did he tell the truth?

More importantly, did FOX tell the truth when they repeatedly told their viewers that they'd go to jail under the new law?

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

"This just in: Bill O'Reilly found to be dishonest. Also recently confirmed; snow cold, sky up, oxygen breathable."

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Tonight he shifted by saying that no one ever said that after the bill was passed, so it was legitimate to say it before and proper.

I personally hate him because he treated a transgendered student as a joke just a few nights ago. It was sick.

[Unabogie]

Tonight he shifted by saying that no one ever said that after the bill was passed, so it was legitimate to say it before and proper.

I personally hate him because he treated a transgendered student as a joke just a few nights ago. It was sick.

Of course, it wasn't TRUE whether they said it before or after. It was always a lie. Just flat out lying pretending to be news.

[cwalner]

Of course, it wasn't TRUE whether they said it before or after. It was always a lie. Just flat out lying pretending to be news.

But if they said it before the law was passed, they were just wrong - uh mistaken- uh mislead by evil liberals, yeah, mislead by evil liberals, not lying, That's the ticket!*


* appropriate credit here given for inspiration of the above post to Jon Lovitz of SNL.

[Upchurch]

But if they said it before the law was passed, they were just wrong - uh mistaken- uh mislead by evil liberals, yeah, mislead by evil liberals, not lying, That's the ticket!*

how about "were given bad intelligence"? That's a popular one.

[Tricky]

This is not the first time Bill has been called out on his lies. Remember when Al Franken exposed him for some of them (http://www.amazon.com/Lies-Lying-Liars-Tell-Them/dp/0525947647)? Bill sued Al and the judge practically laughed O'Reilly out of court (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/22/fox.franken/).
U.S. District Judge Denny Chin, after listening to about half an hour of oral arguments, said the lawsuit was "wholly without merit, both factually and legally."

Bill and "facts" are not best buddies.

[DC]

atleast his bad "intelligence" didnt kill anyone yet.

[Skeptic Guy]

Bill needs a new research department.

[mortimer]

OK, O'Reilly obviously lied. But is the claim that you could go to jail really false?

If I don't get insurance, and am then fined via the IRS, can I refuse to pay that fine without the possibility of going to jail for tax evasion? Seems like a pretty far fetched scenario, but I can see some folks sending in their income tax payment, less the health insurance penalty, just to prove a point. Or is the penalty something separate from income tax such that failing to pay the penalty doesn't fall under the laws of tax evasion?

[cwalner]

This is not the first time Bill has been called out on his lies. Remember when Al Franken exposed him for some of them (http://www.amazon.com/Lies-Lying-Liars-Tell-Them/dp/0525947647)? Bill sued Al and the judge practically laughed O'Reilly out of court (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/22/fox.franken/).


Bill and "facts" are not best buddies.

I recall an interview with Al Franken after that, in which he stated that it wasn't practically, but the Judge quite literally laughed O'Reilly out of court. Of course Franken may have exaggerated but it makes a good story.

[Darth Rotor]

Of course Franken may have exaggerated lied but it makes a good story.
No doubt, as do most tall tales ...

Personally ,I have no problem with a judge laughing a plaintiff out of court if said plaintiff shows up with nothing but rubbish and hot air. I sincerely hope Franken was telling the truth, and I am no fan of Franken.

DR

[Unabogie]

OK, O'Reilly obviously lied. But is the claim that you could go to jail really false?

If I don't get insurance, and am then fined via the IRS, can I refuse to pay that fine without the possibility of going to jail for tax evasion? Seems like a pretty far fetched scenario, but I can see some folks sending in their income tax payment, less the health insurance penalty, just to prove a point. Or is the penalty something separate from income tax such that failing to pay the penalty doesn't fall under the laws of tax evasion?

Yes, it is a lie. There is nothing in the bill about criminal penalties. However, if you willfully evade taxes you could go to jail under current tax law. This is true whether you protest your taxes and withhold a percentage because you oppose defense spending, or medicare spending, or stem cell research, or dog catching. It's still unlawful to willfully evade your taxes.

But, and this is the crux of the lie, even then, it's extremely rare for someone to ever be convicted of tax evasion. Politfact put the number at ~500 for all of last year.

Furthermore, in the current HC law, they've expressly waived even tax evasion prosecutions and instead said they'll merely take it out of your refund. So even though there were never, EVER criminal penalties in the bill, they went the extra mile and expressly prohibited them in the Senate bill. That bill, as you know, was released in what, September of last year? So that means this hasn't been close to an issue for 8 months, and was a weaselly, twisted, truth-like but not true issue before that.

IOW, it's a lie.

[mortimer]

Thanks for the info, Unabogie.

[Accidental Martyr]

at least his bad "intelligence" didnt kill anyone yet.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/01/oreilly-tiller-respond/

[cornsail]

O'Reilly outmatches the rest of Fox News when it comes to aggression, bullying, ego and losing his temper.

In fairness, though he's actually smarter and less ideological than most of the other Fox pundits (although that isn't saying a whole lot). He called Laura Ingraham a blind ideologue. He's also called conservative talk show hosts such as Limbaugh "“idiots,” “charlatans,” and “right-wing liars.” who don't care about the people and fly around in private jets smoking expensive cigars. He may be getting worse though, it's been quite awhile since I've seen his program.

But yeah, I still hate him. Him for being an a-hole, and people like Hannity, Steve Douchey, Glenn Beck, Varny etc etc for being mindless idiots/phonies.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Bill O'Reilly is Completely Dishonest

Thank you, Capn' Obvious.

[Skeptic]

If I don't get insurance, and am then fined via the IRS, can I refuse to pay that fine without the possibility of going to jail for tax evasion? Seems like a pretty far fetched scenario, but I can see some folks sending in their income tax payment, less the health insurance penalty, just to prove a point.

Some people sometimes refuse to pay all or part of their taxes to protest a government policy. For example, some people refused to pay taxes or the part of the tax that goes to the military during the Vietnam war.

Could you go to jail for it? Yes, in theory, just like you could go to jail for refusing to pay any (legal) tax. In practice, you will probably be given many chances to pay before you are actually prosecuted.

[Skeptic Guy]

Some people sometimes refuse to pay all or part of their taxes to protest a government policy. For example, some people refused to pay taxes or the part of the tax that goes to the military during the Vietnam war.

Could you go to jail for it? Yes, in theory, just like you could go to jail for refusing to pay any (legal) tax. In practice, you will probably be given many chances to pay before you are actually prosecuted.

You really can't pay the tax if you are in jail, so the government would be motivated to keep you out of jail. More than likely, the IRS would just ruin your life.

[elbe]

In fairness, though he's actually smarter and less ideological than most of the other Fox pundits (although that isn't saying a whole lot). He called Laura Ingraham a blind ideologue. He's also called conservative talk show hosts such as Limbaugh "“idiots,” “charlatans,” and “right-wing liars.” who don't care about the people and fly around in private jets smoking expensive cigars. He may be getting worse though, it's been quite awhile since I've seen his program.

I occasionally flip onto his show, usually if there is some "hot" topic I'm slightly interested in his opinion on. Every once in a blue moon he says something rational.

I still find "pinhead" to be the most inoffensive insult I've heard on tv in a long, long time.

[Lurker]

Bill needs a new research department.

I'm assuming Bill used the Paris Business Review for his research on this topic. I just wish he had provided a cite.

[Walter Ego]

This is not the first time Bill has been called out on his lies. Remember when Al Franken exposed him for some of them (http://www.amazon.com/Lies-Lying-Liars-Tell-Them/dp/0525947647)? Bill sued Al and the judge practically laughed O'Reilly out of court (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/22/fox.franken/).

Actually, it was Fox News that sued Franken for infringement for the use of the phrase "fair and balanced" in the subtitle of Franken's book and the use of a stock photo of O'Reilly on the cover. O'Reilly wasn't a party to the suit.

[AvalonXQ]

Yeah, the lawsuit was a trademark suit over Franken's use of Fox's slogan. It didn't have anything to do with the accuracy of the content of Franken's book.
I don't like O'Reilly at all.

[Taarkin]

His Malmedy massacre (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBlEkJSo2kM) 'gaffe' is the best example of just how blatant O'Reilly and Fox are in their lying. It was obviously a simple mistake, like saying Istanbul is the capital of Turkey or something. Then, when called out repeatedly, just INSIST you were right instead of admitting a simple error.

[DC]

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/01/oreilly-tiller-respond/

mmmhh ok

[Bob Klase]

Actually, it was Fox News that sued Franken for infringement for the use of the phrase "fair and balanced" in the subtitle of Franken's book and the use of a stock photo of O'Reilly on the cover. O'Reilly wasn't a party to the suit.


So (assuming that's correct), would making an incorrect claim that it was O'Reilly who sued and was laughed out of court in a thread about the poor research and misrepresentation of facts that O'Reilly uses be considered ironic?

[Cicero]

url]http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/oreilly-v-coburn-the-evidence-fox-news-does-claim-youll-go-to-jail-video.php?ref=mp[/url]

So he gets on TV and claims that he checked through the FOX archives and no one, EVER, EVER said that the new health care law mandated jail time on his "news" channel.

Please, watch that mashup. Has there ever been a more dishonest news organization? Hearst? The libels in old England?

MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times since Pinch Sulzberger took over, etc

Anyone care to defend this? First off, did he tell the truth?

While O'Reilly was wrong, when challenged by O'Reilly, Senator Tom Coburn couldn't name anyone on FOX News saying this. With so many examples, how did he whiff on this?

More importantly, did FOX tell the truth when they repeatedly told their viewers that they'd go to jail under the new law?

Nancy Pelosi was asked point blank, "Do you think it’s fair to send people to jail who don’t buy health insurance?" Her answer dodged the question. She apparently believed jail time was a possibility or she would have said that is absurd.


http://www.thefoxnation.com/health-care/2009/11/11/pelosi-its-fair-jail-people-without-health-insurance

[hgc]

While O'Reilly was wrong, when challenged by O'Reilly, Senator Tom Coburn couldn't name anyone on FOX News saying this. With so many examples, how did he whiff on this?


Oh, so now it's Coburn's fault. What Coburn said turned out to be completely, unequivocally correct. Just because he didn't have any examples at hand doesn't make him less correct. Why won't O'Reilly just admit the plain truth?


Nancy Pelosi was asked point blank, "Do you think it’s fair to send people to jail who don’t buy health insurance?" Her answer dodged the question. She apparently believed jail time was a possibility or she would have said that is absurd.


Wait... late-breaking! It's Pelosi's fault. That's why O'Reilly goes to the Malmady Defense.

[I Ratant]

Some people sometimes refuse to pay all or part of their taxes to protest a government policy. For example, some people refused to pay taxes or the part of the tax that goes to the military during the Vietnam war.

Could you go to jail for it? Yes, in theory, just like you could go to jail for refusing to pay any (legal) tax. In practice, you will probably be given many chances to pay before you are actually prosecuted.
.
Wesley Snipes has experience with the process.... :)

[Cicero]

Oh, so now it's Coburn's fault. What Coburn said turned out to be completely, unequivocally correct. Just because he didn't have any examples at hand doesn't make him less correct. Why won't O'Reilly just admit the plain truth?

Fault? The point is Coburn was not prepared to back-up his claim, and then immediately backed down when told he was in error. Obviously, O'Reilly actually believed what he said was true. His staff let him down.


Wait... late-breaking! It's Pelosi's fault. That's why O'Reilly goes to the Malmady Defense.

Fault? The Speaker of The House, a major crafter of the health care insurance reform bill, didn't know jail time was not a condition for failure to comply. It is not Pelosi's fault that she is a benighted botoxer. While O'Reilly should know better, Pelosi can't help herself.

BTW: What this has to do with SS defendants Joachim Peiper and Sepp Dietrich Nuremberg defense can only be explained by your therapist.

[Bob Klase]

Fault? The Speaker of The House, a major crafter of the health care insurance reform bill, didn't know jail time was not a condition for failure to comply.

I don't have the exact quote, but didn't Pelosi say something like 'we won't find out what the health care bill says until we pass it'?

Since the bill hadn't pass yet you certainly couldn't expect her to know it said.

[Cicero]

I don't have the exact quote, but didn't Pelosi say something like 'we won't find out what the health care bill says until we pass it'?

Since the bill hadn't pass yet you certainly couldn't expect her to know it said.

No. But she did say to the question: "Do you think it’s fair to send people to jail who don’t buy health insurance?"

"I think the legislation is very fair in this respect. It gives people an opportunity to have health care, access to quality health care. If they can't afford it, it provides subsidies for them to do so. But do you think it's fair if somebody says, "I'm just not going to have it and if I get sick then I'll just go to the emergency room and send the bill to you."

In November 2009, Pelosi says it is "fair" to KOMO 4 News Shomari Stone. By March, 2010, I guess she and others decided it wouldn't be fair.

[Upchurch]

She apparently believed jail time was a possibility or she would have said that is absurd.

She would have? How could you possibly know that?

[Upchurch]

Obviously, O'Reilly actually believed what he said was true. His staff let him down.
His staff? Glenn Beck sat in a chair across a table from him and talked about jail time for those who don't buy the insurance. O'Reilly joked about sending Beck to jail.

[Cicero]

She would have? How could you possibly know that?

I'm projecting what an intellectually honest, rational, logical person would say when asked about a seemingly outrageous penalty for non-compliance regarding a bill that the person being asked the question was spearheading. Why I would confuse that person with Pelosi is my error. Are you saying that back in November, 2009, jail time was a possibility for non-compliance and that is why Pelosi couldn't or wouldn't shoot down Shomari Stone's scenario?

[Lurker]

While O'Reilly was wrong, when challenged by O'Reilly, Senator Tom Coburn couldn't name anyone on FOX News saying this. With so many examples, how did he whiff on this?

You know, I hear this sort of statement all the time from talk radio hosts and so forth. the problem is, in the course of an interview, the target has no idea where exactly that interview will go. Further, he has no idea what "evidence" he may be asked for. It is somewhat unfair to put someone on the spot without prior warning and ask them for evidence and then calim, probably because they were unprepared, that because they could not provide evidence that therefore their argument is false.

Give them a little time or, even better, advanced warning, of your request. That would be fair. Otherwise you are playing gotcha journalism hoping to catch people unprepared.

BTW, feel free to check out mediamatters or the Daily Show for evidence that O'Reilly was wrong.

[Bob Klase]

I don't have the exact quote, but didn't Pelosi say something like 'we won't find out what the health care bill says until we pass it'?

No.

Apparently yes- something very close to what I wrote unless all these links are lying:

http://www.breitbart.tv/nancy-pelosi-we-need-to-pass-health-care-bill-to-find-out-whats-in-it/

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/10/video-of-the-week-we-have-to-pass-the-bill-so-you-can-find-out-what-is-in-it/

http://patriotpost.us/perspective/2010/03/11/pelosi-pass-the-bill-to-find-out-whats-in-it/

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/09/pelosi-we-need-to-pass-obamacare-so-that-the-public-can-find-out-whats-in-the-bill/

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/5233-pelosi-we-have-to-pass-the-bill-so-that-you-can-find-out-what-is-in-it

http://article.wn.com/view/2010/03/10/Nancy_Pelosi_We_Need_to_Pass_Health_Care_Bill_to_F ind_Out_Wh/
But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it...

[Lurker]

Apparently yes- something very close to what I wrote unless all these links are lying:

http://www.breitbart.tv/nancy-pelosi-we-need-to-pass-health-care-bill-to-find-out-whats-in-it/

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/10/video-of-the-week-we-have-to-pass-the-bill-so-you-can-find-out-what-is-in-it/

http://patriotpost.us/perspective/2010/03/11/pelosi-pass-the-bill-to-find-out-whats-in-it/

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/09/pelosi-we-need-to-pass-obamacare-so-that-the-public-can-find-out-whats-in-the-bill/

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/5233-pelosi-we-have-to-pass-the-bill-so-that-you-can-find-out-what-is-in-it

http://article.wn.com/view/2010/03/10/Nancy_Pelosi_We_Need_to_Pass_Health_Care_Bill_to_F ind_Out_Wh/

I can't speak to the veracity of your links but the two statements are not quite the same:

"you won't" vs "we won't.."

[cwalner]

I'm projecting what an intellectually honest, rational, logical person would say when asked about a seemingly outrageous penalty for non-compliance regarding a bill that the person being asked the question was spearheading. Why I would confuse that person with Pelosi is my error. Are you saying that back in November, 2009, jail time was a possibility for non-compliance and that is why Pelosi couldn't or wouldn't shoot down Shomari Stone's scenario?

Or, she could have felt that her job at the time was to sell the bill to the American public and in politics it often happens that addressing a lie, even to refute it, just gives the lie credence and dilutes the message she is trying to get out. So she did what any politician (right or left) would have done. She ignored what in her mind was a lie and went straight to pre-planned talking points.

[Fishstick]

O'reilly is dishonest. In other news: the sky is blue.

[Ducky]

So...the Pope's Catholic, right?

[hgc]

Fault? The point is Coburn was not prepared to back-up his claim, and then immediately backed down when told he was in error. Obviously, O'Reilly actually believed what he said was true. His staff let him down.


So what if Coburn couldn't back it up? He was RIGHT, as a cursory check by anyone with access to teh Google could find out. He backed down because O'Reilly lied to him, and told him he was in error.

It isn't the least bit obvious that O'Reilly believed what he was saying. As a matter of fact, he still won't admit what he did.


Fault? The Speaker of The House, a major crafter of the health care insurance reform bill, didn't know jail time was not a condition for failure to comply. It is not Pelosi's fault that she is a benighted botoxer. While O'Reilly should know better, Pelosi can't help herself.

... pointless BS ...


I'll say this about Pelosi: She didn't make up and insist on telling untrue stuff in that quote.

Your distractions fail, fail, fail. O'Reilly was caught lying, and refuses to admit it even now. Coburn told the truth. Pelosi skipped the question. It's good to know that O'Reilly has sycophants like you on the internets doing him proud with hilarious pretzel logic.

[AvalonXQ]

So, what O'Reilly is saying now: nobody at Fox News has claimed that the Health Care Bill as passed will actually send you to jail. There was a lot of talk on Fox News back before it passed that jail time was a possible result of not complying with the proposed bill at that time.
Anybody have a clue as to whether or not jail time was a possibility that wasn't actually realized (so it would have made more sense to talk about it then, but not now)?
I've not seen a single quote that shows O'Reilly wrong on this -- has anyone else?

[Bob Klase]

I can't speak to the veracity of your links but the two statements are not quite the same:

I guess that would explain why I phrased it:

I don't have the exact quote, but didn't Pelosi say something like

and

something very close to what I wrote

"you won't" vs "we won't.."

Okay. In a democracy (or democratic republic), which of those two is a good thing?

[Lurker]

So, what O'Reilly is saying now: nobody at Fox News has claimed that the Health Care Bill as passed will actually send you to jail. There was a lot of talk on Fox News back before it passed that jail time was a possible result of not complying with the proposed bill at that time.

Anybody have a clue as to whether or not jail time was a possibility that wasn't actually realized (so it would have made more sense to talk about it then, but not now)?
I've not seen a single quote that shows O'Reilly wrong on this -- has anyone else?

Let me understand you here. You want someone to find a quote, I assume, from a draft bill that explicitly says that jail time is not a possibility. Is that the evidence you are looking for? Do you think that is probable? My guess is that they did not explicitly rule out jettisoning people off into space either as punishment for not having purchased jail time. To disprove that possibility do we need a quote from a draft bill discussing not jettisoning people into space?

My point is, it is the job of those who claim that jail time is a possibility to provide their evidence of such. They do so by showing a draft bill that mentions jail time in some way or another.

[cwalner]

My guess is that they did not explicitly rule out jettisoning people off into space either as punishment for not having purchased jail time.

So, what is the going rate for jail time?;)

[AvalonXQ]

Let me understand you here. You want someone to find a quote, I assume, from a draft bill that explicitly says that jail time is not a possibility. Is that the evidence you are looking for?

I'm looking for evidence that there was or was not a change in the bill on this point, or at least a change in understanding about the bill on this point, so it would or would not have made sense for the Fox News pundits to talk about the bill in late 2009 but not since it passed.
What Bill claimed is that no one on Fox News has never said, "you'll go to jail if you don't buy health insurance".
If Fox News only talked about it prospectively (as a possibility in the coming bill) but not in actuality (never as an actual consequence of the bill having passed), then I'm inclined to say that O'Reilly was correct. There is a distinction between saying that the health care bill would do this before it passed (and nobody could know exactly what would end up in it), and saying that the health care bill has done this once it passed. Again, is there any evidence that the Fox News folks have said the latter?

[Cicero]

I'm looking for evidence that there was or was not a change in the bill on this point, or at least a change in understanding about the bill on this point, so it would or would not have made sense for the Fox News pundits to talk about the bill in late 2009 but not since it passed.
What Bill claimed is that no one on Fox News has never said, "you'll go to jail if you don't buy health insurance".
If Fox News only talked about it prospectively (as a possibility in the coming bill) but not in actuality (never as an actual consequence of the bill having passed), then I'm inclined to say that O'Reilly was correct. There is a distinction between saying that the health care bill would do this before it passed (and nobody could know exactly what would end up in it), and saying that the health care bill has done this once it passed. Again, is there any evidence that the Fox News folks have said the latter?

The five examples where a FOX News host/pundit/contributor mentioned the possibility of jail time for non-compliance was four months before the final bill passed in March, 2010. Since the bill passed, there are no examples of FOX News host/pundit/contributor saying people could go to jail for non-compliance.

Back in November 11, 2009, the Joint Committee on Taxation letter on the House health care bill stated that individuals who did not have such coverage and refused to pay the fine would be subject to "civil and criminal penalties for noncompliance."


Or, she could have felt that her job at the time was to sell the bill to the American public and in politics it often happens that addressing a lie, even to refute it, just gives the lie credence and dilutes the message she is trying to get out. So she did what any politician (right or left) would have done. She ignored what in her mind was a lie and went straight to pre-planned talking points.

Back when Pelosi was asked the question by KOMO 4 News Shomari Stone (November 2009) criminal prosecution ( jail time) was indeed a distinct possibility. Pelosi just didn't want to admit the truth. She is one of the all time great politicians.

While O'Reilly was wrong to say that nobody at FOX News ever claimed this, he was also wrong to suggest that anyone at FOX News, who did say this before the final bill passed, were out of line.

[thaiboxerken]

The "mandate" isn't even a real mandate. Read the bill, people. You can download it for free. It states that:
1. People are mandated to pay. If not:
2. There is a fee/tax to be paid. If someone does not pay the fee/tax:
3. They will really be fined.
4. The fine cannot be garnished from pay. Nor can any assets be collected, nor can the person go to jail for the fines..

[funk de fino]

I've been in Mexico for two weeks on a work trip and have been watching CNN as the news channel on the box. Came in tonight to catch up on the travel chaos in the EU for my return home and that lying sack of crap O'Reilly is on that channel on Fox. As you can imagine the manager has just had an earful and told in no uncertain terms to get it changed back.

[Cicero]

I've been in Mexico for two weeks on a work trip and have been watching CNN as the news channel on the box. Came in tonight to catch up on the travel chaos in the EU for my return home and that lying sack of crap O'Reilly is on that channel on Fox. As you can imagine the manager has just had an earful and told in no uncertain terms to get it changed back.

Better stick to the BBC. Their brand of bias won't give you colic.

[Cicero]

The "mandate" isn't even a real mandate. Read the bill, people. You can download it for free. It states that:
1. People are mandated to pay. If not:
2. There is a fee/tax to be paid. If someone does not pay the fee/tax:
3. They will really be fined.
4. The fine cannot be garnished from pay. Nor can any assets be collected, nor can the person go to jail for the fines..

That is the final bill that passed. Not what was considered to be part of the bill back in October/November, 2009 when FOX News hosts/punidts/contributors pointed out the inclusion of "civil and criminal penalties for noncompliance."
Do you not comprehend this distinction?

[thaiboxerken]

That is the final bill that passed. Not what was considered to be part of the bill back in October/November, 2009 when FOX News hosts/punidts/contributors pointed out the inclusion of "civil and criminal penalties for noncompliance."
Do you not comprehend this distinction?

Right. So the Republicans must've helped to change it to the current status..........

[Cicero]

Right. So the Republicans must've helped to change it to the current status..........

That would be another thread. This one concerns the "dishonesty" of Bill O'Reilly in denying that FOX News on-air people ever said Americans can go to jail for health care non-compliance. O'Reilly should apologize to Coburn and to all those at FOX News who were completely correct to say what they did regarding a possible penalty for non-compliance when they said this before the final bill became law.

The funny thing is that O'Reilly actually agreed with Coburn's second point about how some FOX News on-air people utter uncivil remarks about Pelosi. Does that make O'Reilly more or less "dishonest?"

[Unabogie]

That would be another thread. This one concerns the "dishonesty" of Bill O'Reilly in denying that FOX News on-air people ever said Americans can go to jail for health care non-compliance. O'Reilly should apologize to Coburn and to all those at FOX News who were completely correct to say what they did regarding a possible penalty for non-compliance when they said this before the final bill became law.

So it should be easy to find the line in the bill that specified those criminal penalties. While you're off finding it, we'll stay here and keep reality warm for you.

All kidding aside, it's a complete fabrication and you know it.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/29/patients-first/conservative-group-says-youll-be-imprisoned-not-ha/

[funk de fino]

Better stick to the BBC. Their brand of bias won't give you colic.

The fact you think they do have bias makes it even funnier. Fox is a joke. CNN is better for those who dont want personality talk show crap all night. Not great but better. I prefer news.

[thaiboxerken]

The dishonesty of Bill O'Reilly is obvious. He said he never said something that he did say. Whether that "thing" was ever in the bill or not.

[funk de fino]

"Nobody has ever said it."

[Lurker]

Yeah, O'Reilly is qualifying his statements after being called out on them. Typical, and reminds me of his Malmedy Massacre where he modified what he meant so he would not have to admit he was wrong. "Oh, we just totally misunderstood what he meant. It is our fault."

[Cicero]

So it should be easy to find the line in the bill that specified those criminal penalties. While you're off finding it, we'll stay here and keep reality warm for you.

All kidding aside, it's a complete fabrication and you know it.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/29/patients-first/conservative-group-says-youll-be-imprisoned-not-ha/

From your own source:

"The notion that one could go to prison for not buying insurance is certainly attention-grabbing, but based on past patterns of prosecution, the likelihood of it happening is extremely small. So while the fear seems to us to be overheated, the possibility exists. We rate the statement Barely True."

Let's see how the FOX News Hosts described the "possibility" that exists for jail time.

"...if you don't buy just what they say is right for you, the government may fine you, prosecute you, and even put you in jail."
Judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano

"...let's say you can't afford insurance for whatever reason -- that, I mean, can you imagine the sheriff going out and running you in, throwing you in jail? I mean, it is theoretically possible under what you tell me." Greta Van Susteren


"All right, Dick Morris was on the program last night. Penalties for people who don't get government-mandated health insurance. Jail time, possibility?" Sean Hannity


"You're going to be looking at a fun little stint in jail."
Glenn Beck beleives it is a certain fate.

[Upchurch]

Let's see how the FOX News Hosts described the "possibility" that exists for jail time.
Okay (http://mediamatters.org/research/201004130073)

[Cicero]

The fact you think they do have bias makes it even funnier. Fox is a joke. CNN is better for those who dont want personality talk show crap all night. Not great but better. I prefer news.

The BBC not only thinks it, they admit it. They are not only bias, but they fake video footage as well. The fact you fail to recognize the inherent BBC bias "makes it even funnier."

Confessions of a BBC liberal

"The BBC has finally come clean about its bias, says a former editor, who wrote Yes, Minister

"In the past four weeks there have been two remarkable changes in the public attitude to the BBC. The first and most newsworthy one was precipitated by the faked trailer of the Queen walking out of a photographic portrait session with Annie Leibovitz.

It was especially damaging because the licence fee is based on a public belief that the BBC offers a degree of integrity and impartiality which its commercial competitors cannot achieve."

BBC Admits Anti-American Bias

"The BBC is coming around to recognizing and acknowledging its own bias.

At a recent, so-called "impartiality" conference, one of its top executives acknowledged that the BBC has not been listening to its viewers, and has come to be dominated by leftist and politically correct viewpoints."

http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/bbc-admits-anti-american-bias/

BBC report damns its ‘culture of bias’

"It concludes that the bias has extended across drama, comedy and entertainment, with the corporation pandering to politically motivated celebrities and trendy causes."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1942948.ece

[Shalamar]

Ahh.. The ever common Cicero 'Liberals are evil' comments, and 'Conservatives are never wrong, and are paragons of integrity'. In other words.. The ravings of a right-wing nut.

I almost miss Lefty Sergent.. We seem to have run low on left-wing nuts.

[Upchurch]

The BBC not only thinks it, they admit it. They are not only bias, but they fake video footage as well. The fact you fail to recognize the inherent BBC bias "makes it even funnier."
...and that's why it's okay for O'Reilly to lie his fool head off and/or that's why O'Reilly didn't lie after all!!

Yay!

[Cicero]

Ahh.. The ever common Cicero 'Liberals are evil' comments, and 'Conservatives are never wrong, and are paragons of integrity'. In other words.. The ravings of a right-wing nut.

I almost miss Lefty Sergent.. We seem to have run low on left-wing nuts.

Saying O'Reilly was wrong means he was right in your parallel universe? That is just nuts in either direction.

[funk de fino]

The BBC not only thinks it, they admit it. They are not only bias, but they fake video footage as well. The fact you fail to recognize the inherent BBC bias "makes it even funnier."

Confessions of a BBC liberal

"The BBC has finally come clean about its bias, says a former editor, who wrote Yes, Minister

"In the past four weeks there have been two remarkable changes in the public attitude to the BBC. The first and most newsworthy one was precipitated by the faked trailer of the Queen walking out of a photographic portrait session with Annie Leibovitz.

It was especially damaging because the licence fee is based on a public belief that the BBC offers a degree of integrity and impartiality which its commercial competitors cannot achieve."


One guys says. Are you seriously trying to paint them as bias against the Queen? Good luck with that.

The footage, revealed to the press on Wednesday, was not intended to be seen and was shown in error, the BBC said.

The documentary, A Year With The Queen, will be shown later this year.

"The BBC would like to apologise to both the Queen and Annie Leibovitz for any upset this may have caused", the corporation said in a statement.

In a later joint statement, the BBC and production company RDF Media said the film had been edited out of sequence and supplied to the corporation in error.

BBC Admits Anti-American Bias

"The BBC is coming around to recognizing and acknowledging its own bias.

At a recent, so-called "impartiality" conference, one of its top executives acknowledged that the BBC has not been listening to its viewers, and has come to be dominated by leftist and politically correct viewpoints."

http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/bbc-admits-anti-american-bias/

So the BBC should be populist? From your piece, the only part about the US.

BBC Washington correspondent Justin Webb reportedly said that the BBC is extremely biased against America and that it deserves "no moral weight."

One guy said. Your headline is a lie.

BBC report damns its ‘culture of bias’

"It concludes that the bias has extended across drama, comedy and entertainment, with the corporation pandering to politically motivated celebrities and trendy causes."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1942948.ece

Yet they did not report or show the Palestine appeal?

Although its coverage of conventional politics is judged to be fair and impartial, the inquiry says the BBC allowed itself to be hijacked by Geldof, the U2 singer Bono, and Curtis, who urged Tony Blair to pressure world leaders to alleviate poverty in developing countries.

Epic fail.

Those on the left say it is right wing, those on the right say it is left wing. Some say it is anti israel, some say it is pro palestine. the clue here is that both sides claim bias. That should tell you something.

[Cicero]

...and that's why it's okay for O'Reilly to lie his fool head off and/or that's why O'Reilly didn't lie after all!!

Yay!

funk de fino is blissfully ignorant about his beloved BBC's bias, Reminding him of their bias is the reason for the burr under your saddle?

I said O'Reilly was wrong in post #27. Did you miss that for the same reason that Shalamar did?

[Shalamar]

Saying O'Reilly was wrong means he was right in your parallel universe? That is just nuts in either direction.

The thread is 'Bill O'reilly was dishonest'. He certainly is. You replied 'He was wrong', which is not the same. And you still rant about how evil the left is..

[Upchurch]

I said O'Reilly was wrong in post #27.
And then, in post #60, you hedged back by cherry-picking quotes with words like may and theoretically possible. Suggesting it wasn't as wide-spread or pervasive as it really was.

I don't really care about the BBC one way or the other. What does that have to do with this thread, Cicero?

[funk de fino]

And then, in post #60, you hedged back by cherry-picking quotes with words like may and theoretically possible. Suggesting it wasn't as wide-spread or pervasive as it really was.

I don't really care about the BBC one way or the other. What does that have to do with this thread, Cicero?

It's the usual to wrongs make a right argument. It seems to be all he has after the Babs Streisand debacle.

[Cicero]

The thread is 'Bill O'reilly was dishonest'. He certainly is. You replied 'He was wrong', which is not the same. And you still rant about how evil the left is..

It is only permissible to "rant" about how "evil" the right is on JREF?

[Cicero]

It's the usual to wrongs make a right argument. It seems to be all he has after the Babs Streisand debacle.

Since you don't admit the BBC is biased, even when they themselves admit to it, why would Babs sharing troofer beliefs get you to admit she is a troofer?

Now Upchurch can Upbraid you on bringing in Babs' trooferism into this thread.

[Shalamar]

It is only permissible to "rant" about how "evil" the right is on JREF?

I'd rather there was no ranting at all. The ranting makes the politics section... While.. somewhat entertaining, less full of actual facts and information.

[Upchurch]

Now Upchurch can Upbraid you on bringing in Babs' trooferism into this thread.

I have no idea what you are talking about. How does this relate to the thread topic, Cicero?

[Cicero]

I have no idea what you are talking about. How does this relate to the thread topic, Cicero?

Do you have funk de fino on ignore? Your thread derail accusations are curiously selective.

[AvalonXQ]

So, once all the facts are actually in:
O'Reilly wasn't wrong. Directly following an announcement that implied the possibility of jail time, Fox News talked about it as a possibility. All the quotes that have been brought up are from that period.
No one on Fox News has reported or implied that the bill as actually passed will send people to jail, which was O'Reilly's statement to Coburn, and is true.

[Upchurch]

Do you have funk de fino on ignore? Your thread derail accusations are curiously selective.
Looks like you were the one that brought up BBC and then went nuts about it.

[Unabogie]

So, once all the facts are actually in:
O'Reilly wasn't wrong. Directly following an announcement that implied the possibility of jail time, Fox News talked about it as a possibility. All the quotes that have been brought up are from that period.
No one on Fox News has reported or implied that the bill as actually passed will send people to jail, which was O'Reilly's statement to Coburn, and is true.

No, seriously, you can't believe what you just wrote. Bill O'Reilly claimed that no one ever said anything about jail on FOX. And he said this because some woman told Tom Coburn she was afraid of going to jail. Coburn rightly said that FOX had misled her and they did. That's why people who watch FOX think the law mandates criminal penalties and has "16000 new IRS agents" to enforce the penalties.

Did you watch the clips? FOX was rife with jail talk. They were teeming with it. Silly with it. Infested with it.

None of this was ever true. Not now, not before. The fact that in some tortured reading of the bill, you could have made the case that an out of control IRS would seek massive tax evasion charges over $1900 delinquencies and targeted poor patriotic Teabaggers is just part of the dishonesty. Name a law, and I can point out to you how some whacked out prosecutor could abuse it and charge someone. That doesn't mean the law is flawed or that the idea has any validity whatsoever.

It's a conspiracy theory masquerading as garden variety cynical mendacity.

In other words, it's nuts.

[Newtons Bit]

I have a couple of comments on this.

The original house bill that was passed, HR 3962 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3962/text) said this (Sec. 59B)
(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of--

The bill also required you to state all sorts of information about your coverage, and there were real tax-code penalties (that I haven't looked up yet, but may include jail) for not reporting them.

The Bill that was passed, H.R. 3590 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3590/text) (aka the Senate Bill) has a clause forbidding jail time or criminal prosecution in Sect 5000A,
(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES- In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.

The first bill that passed the house included penalties (probably jailtime) for not paying the additional taxes due to not having health insurance. The final bill that passed both houses specifically forbid any criminal prosecution. Which means no one has to pay it because they can't force you to.

[Cicero]

It's a conspiracy theory masquerading as garden variety cynical mendacity.

In other words, it's nuts.

If you believe this was a "CT," ABC News and MSNBC's Keith Olbermann perpetuated it as well.

In the same show with Coburn, O'Reilly agreed with Coburn's second point about how some FOX News on-air people utter uncivil remarks about Pelosi. Was that "nuts" as well? Does that make O'Reilly more or less "dishonest?"

[funk de fino]

Since you don't admit the BBC is biased, even when they themselves admit to it, why would Babs sharing troofer beliefs get you to admit she is a troofer?

They admit to bias news? Bring it. We were talking new channels yes? O'Reilly is on a news channel yes?

Now Upchurch can Upbraid you on bringing in Babs' trooferism into this thread.

Except I am not bringing it. Neither could you.

[Newtons Bit]

If you believe this was a "CT," ABC News and MSNBC's Keith Olbermann perpetuated it as well.

In the same show with Coburn, O'Reilly agreed with Coburn's second point about how some FOX News on-air people utter uncivil remarks about Pelosi. Was that "nuts" as well? Does that make O'Reilly more or less "dishonest?"

Except that penalties are part of the House bill, and the Senate Bill(the one that was passed) specifically forbids said penalties. People that were talking about this 4 months ago weren't making it up. They were reading from the House Bill.

[funk de fino]

Looks like you were the one that brought up BBC and then went nuts about it.

He doesnt like it when you do that.

[Bob Klase]

All kidding aside, it's a complete fabrication and you know it.

I'm just curious now. If a "complete fabrication" rates a "barely true rating", what does it take to get a "Completely False" rating? Do you need to be committing a murder at the time you utter the complete fabrication? Do you have to repeat the complete fabrication a certain number of times? How does that work?

[AvalonXQ]

No, seriously, you can't believe what you just wrote. Bill O'Reilly claimed that no one ever said anything about jail on FOX.

Wrong. What he said was: "We researched to find out if anybody on Fox News had ever said you're going to jail if you don't buy health insurance. Nobody's ever said it."
Which is true. Nobody on Fox news had ever claimed that "you're going to jail if you don't buy health insurance". A claim like that, by its very nature, would have had to have been made since the bill passed.
As O'Reilly has since explained, jail time was discussed back in November when jail time was on the table. Nobody on Fox News has mentioned jail time in connection with the passed Health Care Bill; nobody on Fox News has claimed that anyone will go to jail for not having health insurance. That was the question that the senator's constituant was asking, that's what O'Reilly checked, and that's what O'Reilly was addressing.
Spin this any way you want; O'Reilly was right and you're wrong.

[Upchurch]

Wrong. What he said was: "We researched to find out if anybody on Fox News had ever said you're going to jail if you don't buy health insurance. Nobody's ever said it."
Which is true. Nobody on Fox news had ever claimed that "you're going to jail if you don't buy health insurance". A claim like that, by its very nature, would have had to have been made since the bill passed.
As O'Reilly has since explained, jail time was discussed back in November when jail time was on the table. Nobody on Fox News has mentioned jail time in connection with the passed Health Care Bill; nobody on Fox News has claimed that anyone will go to jail for not having health insurance. That was the question that the senator's constituant was asking, that's what O'Reilly checked, and that's what O'Reilly was addressing.
Spin this any way you want; O'Reilly was right and you're wrong.
...

wooooooooow

You claim he didn't say what you just quoted him saying. I'm not sure what to say to that.

Is that an actual example of a psychotic break?

[Ladewig]

I'm going to have to put Bill in the dishonest category. One of his talking points this afternoon was: Jon Stewart called Fox News hypocritical because of its bias, but Stewart has a strong liberal bias, so he's a hypocrite.

No one with Bill O'Reilly's education, experience, and knowledge could possibly think that the bias of a comedian on a comedy channel rises anywhere close to being as serious as the bias of a political commentator on a news channel that bills itself as "fair and balanced." I'll leave out the tu quoque fallacy, but stick with my assertion - Bill O'Reilly is intellectually dishonest.

[Ladewig]

Wrong. What he said was: "We researched to find out if anybody on Fox News had ever said you're going to jail if you don't buy health insurance. Nobody's ever said it."
Which is true. Nobody on Fox news had ever claimed that "you're going to jail if you don't buy health insurance".

Did you watch the clip in the OP? I ask because in the video clip there are eight Fox News hosts saying that violators will go to jail. Why are you saying that no one on Fox News ever said that?

[Newtons Bit]

Did you watch the clip in the OP? I ask because in the video clip there are eight Fox News hosts saying that violators will go to jail. Why are you saying that no one on Fox News ever said that?

Apparantly there's some sort of "nuance" involved when one is referring to either the House Bill or the Senate Bill.

[Accidental Martyr]

Spin this any way you want; O'Reilly was right and you're wrong.

Wow. What alternate universe do you live in?

[Ladewig]

Wrong. What he said was: "We researched to find out if anybody on Fox News had ever said you're going to jail if you don't buy health insurance. Nobody's ever said it."
Which is true. Nobody on Fox news had ever claimed that "you're going to jail if you don't buy health insurance". A claim like that, by its very nature, would have had to have been made since the bill passed.
As O'Reilly has since explained, jail time was discussed back in November when jail time was on the table. Nobody on Fox News has mentioned jail time in connection with the passed Health Care Bill; nobody on Fox News has claimed that anyone will go to jail for not having health insurance. That was the question that the senator's constituant was asking, that's what O'Reilly checked, and that's what O'Reilly was addressing.
Spin this any way you want; O'Reilly was right and you're wrong.


I see I misread your post when I wrote post #88. Here is my question. If that is what Mr. O'Reilly meant, why is that not what he said? He didn't say, "since the bill has passed no one has discussed jail time," he said "No one has discussed jail time." Furthermore, the senator's claim was not that people on Fox News had mentioned jail time since the bill has passed. The senator's claim was that people on Fox News have discussed jail time.

[AvalonXQ]

I see I misread your post when I wrote post #88. Here is my question. If that is what Mr. O'Reilly meant, why is that not what he said? He didn't say, "since the bill has passed no one has discussed jail time," he said "No one has discussed jail time."

O'Reilly has explained it quite well himself: when jail time was on the table, Fox News talked about jail time. But jail time wasn't in the bill that passed, which is why no one on Fox News has ever told the American people that if they don't get health insurance they'll go to jail. No one at Fox News has misrepresented the final health bill, the one that actually became law, in that way.
What O'Reilly said was true both literally and by implication, end of story.
On this issue, O'Reilly is right, you're wrong.

[Ladewig]

O'Reilly has explained it quite well himself: when jail time was on the table, Fox News talked about jail time. But jail time wasn't in the bill that passed, which is why no one on Fox News has ever told the American people that if they don't get health insurance they'll go to jail. No one at Fox News has misrepresented the final health bill, the one that actually became law, in that way.
What O'Reilly said was true both literally and by implication, end of story.
On this issue, O'Reilly is right, you're wrong.

Again, I have to ask did you watch the video. There are several Fox News commentators that say, verbatim, "if you don't buy health insurance, you will go to jail."

O'Reilly: "nobody has ever said it." He wasn't claiming that no one has said it since the bill passed. His exact words were "nobody has ever said it."

G. Beck: "If you don't play by their new rules on health care ... you're going to be looking at a fun little stint in jail."

You are very much in the wrong on this topic. Bill O'Reilly was either lying or incompetent when he claimed that nobody at Fox News has ever said it.

[Newtons Bit]

Again, I have to ask did you watch the video. There are several Fox News commentators that say, verbatim, "if you don't buy health insurance, you will go to jail."

Which bill were said commentators talking about?

[funk de fino]

Which bill were said commentators talking about?

When it comes to "nobodies ever said it" it doesn't really matter.

[Newtons Bit]

When it comes to "nobodies ever said it" it doesn't really matter.

Yes, but as I understand it, the real context was the final bill.

[elbe]

Yes, but as I understand it, the real context was the final bill.

Isn't the real context that the talking heads on fox just wanted to make the bill (which ever one) sound as bad as possible because that's what their viewers want? And now they're trying to just cover their butts after being called on it?

[Lurker]

I'm willing to grant a little flexibility on O'Reilly here. He may have meant what Newton's Bits is referring to.

If we need point at O'Reilly lies we can always use the Paris Business Review and their article on the Malmedy Massacre.

[funk de fino]

Yes, but as I understand it, the real context was the final bill.

Coburn said "that makes good news on Fox" Someone asked him about penalties and he said that. I see no specifics. O'Reilly made a general statement that no-one ever said it. He researched it he said. Colburn said he saw it said on Fox. He was correct.

O'Reilly was wrong. People need to get a grip here.

[Ladewig]

Which bill were said commentators talking about?

I don't know. The video does not include dates. I assumed they were talking about earlier drafts, but in any case I cannot see how the phrase "nobody has ever said it" can be taken as referring only to the final law. At no point in O'Reilly's speech does he ever say, "since the bill was passed." Even taken in context, there is no reason to assume he meant "nobody has ever said it since the bill was signed."

[JoeTheJuggler]

OK, O'Reilly obviously lied. But is the claim that you could go to jail really false?

If I don't get insurance, and am then fined via the IRS, can I refuse to pay that fine without the possibility of going to jail for tax evasion? Seems like a pretty far fetched scenario, but I can see some folks sending in their income tax payment, less the health insurance penalty, just to prove a point. Or is the penalty something separate from income tax such that failing to pay the penalty doesn't fall under the laws of tax evasion?

I realize this thread has moved on considerably, so I apologize if this has already been addressed.

I know we went on at some considerable length about this point in one or more of the threads before the bill passed. Even if the scenario described happens, it would be wrong to say the person was jailed for not having insurance.

Similarly, if you get parking tickets and don't pay the fines, eventually you can be caught and thrown into jail. It would be absurd to say that you can go to jail for parking at an expired meter.

You can go to jail for tax evasion or for failure to pay fines.

[Newtons Bit]

I realize this thread has moved on considerably, so I apologize if this has already been addressed.

I know we went on at some considerable length about this point in one or more of the threads before the bill passed. Even if the scenario described happens, it would be wrong to say the person was jailed for not having insurance.

Similarly, if you get parking tickets and don't pay the fines, eventually you can be caught and thrown into jail. It would be absurd to say that you can go to jail for parking at an expired meter.

You can go to jail for tax evasion or for failure to pay fines.

Except in the Senate version of the bill. It specifically forbids criminal liability for not paying the fine. It also forbids a lien being put on your house (I think it was house, maybe it was property) for not paying the fine.

[AvalonXQ]

I don't know. The video does not include dates.

The videos I watched included dates.
All but, I think, two of the clips were from the same week in November. Those two were also late-2009.
In other words, all the discussion occurred in response to the relevant criminal enforcement news breaking on the issue.

[Unabogie]

The videos I watched included dates.
All but, I think, two of the clips were from the same week in November. Those two were also late-2009.
In other words, all the discussion occurred in response to the relevant criminal enforcement news breaking on the issue.


The Senate bill was online for the world in September 2009. Even then, it was ********. You had one bill that didn't discuss jail at all and another that prohibited it. And from this, FOX told its viewers you'd be going to jail.

*Edited for clarity

[JoeTheJuggler]

Except in the Senate version of the bill. It specifically forbids criminal liability for not paying the fine. It also forbids a lien being put on your house (I think it was house, maybe it was property) for not paying the fine.

Thanks for clearing that up. I guess the point I was trying to make is even if it weren't that way, and you could be jailed for tax evasion or on other grounds for not paying the fine, it still wouldn't be accurate to say you were jailed for not having health insurance. (Just as it's wrong to say that the penalty for parking at an expired meter is jail time.)

[thaiboxerken]

O'Reilly's pants have to be doused with water every 30 minutes. Otherwise, they will catch fire.

[pgwenthold]

O'Reilly's pants have to be doused with water every 30 minutes. Otherwise, they will catch fire.

Telephone wires are mainly underground these days, which accounts for why his nose is buried in the sand.

[Freddy]

So, what O'Reilly is saying now: nobody at Fox News has claimed that the Health Care Bill as passed will actually send you to jail. There was a lot of talk on Fox News back before it passed that jail time was a possible result of not complying with the proposed bill at that time.
Anybody have a clue as to whether or not jail time was a possibility that wasn't actually realized (so it would have made more sense to talk about it then, but not now)?
I've not seen a single quote that shows O'Reilly wrong on this -- has anyone else?

My understanding is that talk about potential jail time occurred before the language of the final bill was known. At that time, it made sense to speculate about what the penalty might be, because a penalty without real teeth would (and will) completely destroy the private market for individual insurance (as opposed to group plans). So jail time was on the table until it was taken off the table, which did not happen until it became clear that the only way to pass a bill was to pass the Senate bill, which did not provide for jail time. So did anyone on Fox talk about jail time after Scott Brown was elected? If so, that's dishonest. Otherwise, this is a big nothingburger.

[Iamme]

The "mandate" isn't even a real mandate. Read the bill, people. You can download it for free. It states that:
1. People are mandated to pay. If not:
2. There is a fee/tax to be paid. If someone does not pay the fee/tax:
3. They will really be fined.
4. The fine cannot be garnished from pay. Nor can any assets be collected, nor can the person go to jail for the fines..

We actually pay our esteemed legislators to come up with something like this?

At first I thought this was a joke post til a following poster said this is part of the final bill.

The four points all lead in the direction that you better pay...then better pay or else...yet the end result is that nothing will happen to you if you do not pay. WHAT???!!!!...morons are getting paid for this piece of fine work?

Why the H would anybody pay in towards health insurance then?

[Dorian Gray]

Wrong. What he said was: "We researched to find out if anybody on Fox News had ever said you're going to jail if you don't buy health insurance. Nobody's ever said it."
Which is true. Nobody on Fox news had ever claimed that "you're going to jail if you don't buy health insurance". A claim like that, by its very nature, would have had to have been made since the bill passed.
As O'Reilly has since explained, jail time was discussed back in November when jail time was on the table. Nobody on Fox News has mentioned jail time in connection with the passed Health Care Bill; nobody on Fox News has claimed that anyone will go to jail for not having health insurance. That was the question that the senator's constituant was asking, that's what O'Reilly checked, and that's what O'Reilly was addressing.
Spin this any way you want; O'Reilly was right and you're wrong.
YOU'RE the one spinning. The smoking gun is:"A claim like that, by its very nature, would have had to have been made since the bill passed." Spin. O'Reilly didn't say "No one's said it since the bill passed." O'Reilly said "No one's EVER said it." You just acknowledged people on Fox News mentioned jail time. That's the exact opposite of not EVER saying it. O'Reilly was wrong. So are you.

[Ausmerican]

I believe that what Avalon is doing here is what one of our prominent right wing posters refers to as "parsing like a Clinton".

[AvalonXQ]

O'Reilly said "No one's EVER said it."

What O'Reilly said is that no one on Fox News has told the audience that they'll go to jail if they don't buy health insurance.
And he's right; they haven't.
Nice try; still wrong.

[tyr_13]

This is one of those threads that I read the first page and come to believe it will quickly die. A week latter it's on page three, or five, or eight, and I think to myself, "What could they possibly still be talking about?" So I check it, re-reading from the beginning up to the end. Inevitably, I feel stupid for having wasted the time.

Back to the inanity.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I'm going to have to put Bill in the dishonest category. One of his talking points this afternoon was: Jon Stewart called Fox News hypocritical because of its bias, but Stewart has a strong liberal bias, so he's a hypocrite.

No one with Bill O'Reilly's education, experience, and knowledge could possibly think that the bias of a comedian on a comedy channel rises anywhere close to being as serious as the bias of a political commentator on a news channel that bills itself as "fair and balanced." I'll leave out the tu quoque fallacy, but stick with my assertion - Bill O'Reilly is intellectually dishonest.

That he would say that about Stewart is just ridiculous. There is no expectation for a comedian to be unbiased, nor any moral imperative for him to be so. There is an expectation and a moral imperative for news organizations to not be biased.

here's another little example of Bill O'Reilly utter hypocracy that I posted in a separate thread related to treatment of abused boys vs girls. This is an old issue, and I am seeking to switch the focus of the conversation to the item below. Just wanted to provide what I find to be an especially disgusting example of O'Reilly hypocracy:


Sean Hornbeck was kidnapped when he was 11 years old. At the beginning of his captivity, he was tied down and physically restrained, tortured, and raped repeatedly. There is video tape his captor took that was presented at trial of him being raped and tortured. Then, after a period of time, his abductor went to kill him, but the boy convinced him that he would do anything he wanted if he let him live. He spent the next four years being raped and tortured by his abductor, who continuously threatened his life and his parents' lives. Over time, he was able to take Sean out with him, and even let Sean out on his own. Sean had many opportunities to ask for help but never did.


When covering this story in 2007 soon after Sean was found, Bill O'reilly had the following to say;

""there was an element here that this kid liked about this circumstances" and "And the question is, why didn't he escape when he could have? There are all kinds of theories about that. ... All right, you know, the Stockholm syndrome thing, I don't buy it. I've never bought it. I didn't think it happened in the Patty Hearst case. I don't think it happened here." O'Reilly also said: "The situation here for this kid looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his old parents. He didn't have to go to school. He could run around and do whatever he wanted."

http://mediamatters.org/research/200701170009


In 2003, when Elizabeth Smart was found alive (same age as Sean, 15), also found to have had many opportunities to ask for help but never did. Bill O'Reilly had this to say:

"The reason questions like why didn't the 15-year-old cry out for help and was she brainwashed by her kidnapper have to be answered is to help other abducted children. The more we know about Elizabeth Smart's investigation, the better future investigations of this type will be. There is no question, this is a very strange case. But jumping to conclusions can only hurt Elizabeth and the Smart family. Thus, we the media should be cautious....But we will use discretion, because the mental health of a 15-year-old girl is the most important aspect of this case right now."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81096,00.html