Clinton Penis Envy Redux at FOX News

danarhea · Aug 10, 2008

With the Russia-Georgia war, there are some serious issues.

1) Had Georgia joined NATO, and Russia attacked, would be have had a nuclear war? Members of NATO are required to attack anyone that attacks a NATO member.

2) Had Georgia joined NATO, would Russia have attacked them, knowing that this would have triggered a major war between major powers?

3) What about the Senate's refusal to allow Georgia to join NATO?

4) And what about Obama and McCain, both who support Georgia joining NATO?

These are important questions, but FOX News seems fixated on penises again, this time, the penis of John Edwards. Not to detract from the seriousness of what Edwards did. He is scum. OK, folks, we already know that, but there are some serious news items that need to be discussed. Edwards' political career is toast, so lets move on to South Ossetia. This is still a situation that could possibly blow up and lead to at least a regional conflict involving major powers. So how is FOX News handling this important event? Watch the video clip.

From the time of Clinton's second term to today, Clinton Penis Envy has been the big hit on TV. But wait, folks, there's more. A free bonus. Son of Clinton Penis Envy, starring John Edwards. More hours of fun, brought to you by the Democratic Party and FOX News. Move over Clinton Penis Envy. A new gunslinger is in town, and as he holds his gun in his hand, women swoon, men get jealous, and of course, FOX News salivates (they are gay, you know). That's right folks, it's Son of Clinton Penis Envy, brought to you by the Fair, Balanced, and Horny Channel, coming to you in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and beyond, that is, unless FOX News can find another penis to latch onto before then.

So guys, the moral of the story is you better keep it in your pants, lest someday you find Bill O'Reilly making a grab for it. He wants it bad, so watch out.

YouTube - Fox's Greg Jarrett on John Edwards

Jake Blues · Aug 11, 2008

Fox news doesn't have to look far for sexual scandal.Their golden boy Bill O'Reilly was in a sexual harassment lawsuit not very long ag

f course he paid hush money to keep his name out of the headlines.But for those that that missed it he tried to bed down one of his co-workers and had some rather steamy phone conversations before she hit him with a lawsuit which he settled out of court.Isn't he married?Like Bill always says sex offenders never stop.He ought to know.He only wishes he had Clinton's penis so he could bed down some of those "filthy fox news broadcast babes".The sexual tension and stress must so tough on poor Billy.I geuss that is why they obsess so much over the bj Clinton got!

RedAkston · Aug 11, 2008

Jake Blues said:
Fox news doesn't have to look far for sexual scandal.Their golden boy Bill O'Reilly was in a sexual harassment lawsuit not very long agf course he paid hush money to keep his name out of the headlines.But for those that that missed it he tried to bed down one of his co-workers and had some rather steamy phone conversations before she hit him with a lawsuit which he settled out of court.Isn't he married?Like Bill always says sex offenders never stop.He ought to know.He only wishes he had Clinton's penis so he could bed down some of those "filthy fox news broadcast babes".The sexual tension and stress must so tough on poor Billy.I geuss that is why they obsess so much over the bj Clinton got!

You failed to use the word "alleged" in your statement, but I'll forgive you this time. Just because someone accuses someone of something, it doesn't necessarily make it true. If I accused you of having sex with goats, does that make it true? O'Reilly is a celebrity and people are going to take shots at celebrities, it happens each and every day. Bottom line (back on topic of the thread) is I could care less what O'Reilly, Clinton or even Edwards does in his spare time. But the major difference is that O'Reilly is a pundit, he is not a public official, such as Clinton and Edwards were. Edwards looks like a major hypocrite for having done this. His political future is over and FOX News should give it a rest.

Singularity · Aug 11, 2008

Jake Blues said:
Fox news doesn't have to look far for sexual scandal.Their golden boy Bill O'Reilly was in a sexual harassment lawsuit not very long agf course he paid hush money to keep his name out of the headlines.But for those that that missed it he tried to bed down one of his co-workers and had some rather steamy phone conversations before she hit him with a lawsuit which he settled out of court.Isn't he married?Like Bill always says sex offenders never stop.He ought to know.He only wishes he had Clinton's penis so he could bed down some of those "filthy fox news broadcast babes".The sexual tension and stress must so tough on poor Billy.I geuss that is why they obsess so much over the bj Clinton got!

Excuse me for saying this, but that's a very one-sided view of the Bill O'Reilly story.

Bill O'Reilly was involved in a sexual harassment lawsuit by Andrea Mackris, the show's producer at the time. However, Bill filed a lawsuit earlier in the day against Mackris for extortion ( O'Reilly: Female Aide In $60M Extort Bid - October 13, 2004), claiming that she was seeking almost $60 million. O'Reilly's story is that if she didn't pay, she'd sue him. Her story is that O'Reilly was describing vivid sexual acts in phone conversations between the two, and later that Fox News was seeking to have her fired because of the lawsuit.

The case was settled when both parties dropped the charges against each other, and no details of the case were made public. This did not stop a few media outlets from printing conjecture about how O'Reilly was forced to pay millions as "hush money", allegations which are unsubstantiated and pure rumor. Story can be found here: Bill O'Reilly, Producer Settle Harassment Suit (washingtonpost.com)

I personally don't think O'Reilly did it. Feel free to believe otherwise, but unlike many liberals and O'Reilly haters, I listen to his show quite often. If there was anything to this, i'd have given the girl a fair shot. But from everything i've heard and read on the subject, she was TOTALLY in the wrong.

My two cents.

Thorgasm · Aug 11, 2008

Singularity said:
Excuse me for saying this, but that's a very one-sided view of the Bill O'Reilly story.

Bill O'Reilly was involved in a sexual harassment lawsuit by Andrea Mackris, the show's producer at the time. However, Bill filed a lawsuit earlier in the day against Mackris for extortion ( O'Reilly: Female Aide In $60M Extort Bid - October 13, 2004), claiming that she was seeking almost $60 million. O'Reilly's story is that if she didn't pay, she'd sue him. Her story is that O'Reilly was describing vivid sexual acts in phone conversations between the two, and later that Fox News was seeking to have her fired because of the lawsuit.

The case was settled when both parties dropped the charges against each other, and no details of the case were made public. This did not stop a few media outlets from printing conjecture about how O'Reilly was forced to pay millions as "hush money", allegations which are unsubstantiated and pure rumor. Story can be found here: Bill O'Reilly, Producer Settle Harassment Suit (washingtonpost.com)

I personally don't think O'Reilly did it. Feel free to believe otherwise, but unlike many liberals and O'Reilly haters, I listen to his show quite often. If there was anything to this, i'd have given the girl a fair shot. But from everything i've heard and read on the subject, she was TOTALLY in the wrong.

My two cents.

From your source:

The deal likely involves payment of millions of dollars to Mackris, since the two sides were discussing an offer of well over $2 million when negotiations broke down, say sources close to O'Reilly. Both parties agreed to keep the details confidential, according to the statement.

The settlement has been rumored at 10 million dollars.

Sir Loin · Aug 11, 2008

Having watched the Edwards news over the last two days, how amusing it is to watch the "Fox News is" types pretend that Fox News is somehow the only news cable network that was running the story. All day. On every program. All day long. All night long. CNN and MSNBC both ran the story ad nausem.

Yet somehow we have a thread about Fox doing this. Just Fox.:roll:

Chuckle.

GottaHurt · Aug 11, 2008

The moral of the story is, you should actually watch FOX news in order to make an accurate and informed assessment of their news coverage.

The Olympics, the Georgia-Russian conflict, the Casey Anthony case, as well as the John Edwards story, are the dominating topics that are being reported hourly on FOX news.

The only penis envy fixation that is apparent, is the OP's flaccid attempt to smear FOX news.

Sir Loin · Aug 11, 2008

GottaHurt said:
The moral of the story is, you should actually watch FOX news in order to make an accurate and informed assessment of their news coverage.

The Olympics, the Georgia-Russian conflict, the Casey Anthony case, as well as the John Edwards story, are the dominating topics that are being reported hourly on FOX news.

Oddly Fox has been covering exactly the same topics being covered by the rest of the cable news. The local news, network news, newspapers, blogs, morning shows and every other American media source too.

Oh look at what Fox is doing!!!!!!!:roll:

GottaHurt said:
The only penis envy fixation that is apparent, is the OP's flaccid attempt to smear FOX news.

Well yes the OP was dumb. In fact, most often the threads here at DP associated with Fox News are routinely dumb. Usually ill informed and frankly so intellectually dishonest that you would think people otherwise trying to appear informed and rational, would stray away from soiling themselves in the "Fox News is" dummy jig. :doh

Middleground · Aug 11, 2008

Sir Loin said:
Having watched the Edwards news over the last two days, how amusing it is to watch the "Fox News is" types pretend that Fox News is somehow the only news cable network that was running the story. All day. On every program. All day long. All night long. CNN and MSNBC both ran the story ad nausem.

Yet somehow we have a thread about Fox doing this. Just Fox.:roll:

Chuckle.

Did you see the piece? Do you call that journalism? I call it a big pile of steaming poop. Even the interviewee wanted to change the subject, and mentioned more than once that the American people wanted more substance to their news. So what does the jackass anchor do? He brings up Edwards again, LOL. What a joke "news" has become.

GottaHurt · Aug 11, 2008

Middleground said:
Did you see the piece? Do you call that journalism? I call it a big pile of steaming poop. Even the interviewee wanted to change the subject, and mentioned more than once that the American people wanted more substance to their news. So what does the jackass anchor do? He brings up Edwards again, LOL. What a joke "news" has become.

Of course the liberal interviewee wants to change the subject, liberals don't want to talk about this huge scandal, they want to bury it.

John Edwards is still in the middle of a huge lie. He was just in the democratic presidential primaries, how is this not a major news story?

Right now they're tracking the money trail, you know, who paid for what and why, and where the money is coming from.

I'll go out on a limb here and say Edwards will be revising his story soon.

Middleground · Aug 11, 2008

GottaHurt said:
Of course the liberal interviewee wants to change the subject, liberals don't want to talk about this huge scandal, they want to bury it.

John Edwards is still in the middle of a huge lie. He was just in the democratic presidential primaries, how is this not a major news story?

Right now they're tracking the money trail, you know, who paid for what and why, and where the money is coming from.

I'll go out on a limb here and say Edwards will be revising his story soon.

And why do people care about Edwards? He's no longer in politics. So what does it matter if he's a scumbag or not? Why is this bigger news than what's happening in Georgia or other parts of the world? Are Americans really that dumbed down to accept this crap as newsworthy, let alone the subject of a lengthy interview? Please.

GottaHurt · Aug 11, 2008

Middleground said:
And why do people care about Edwards? He's no longer in politics. So what does it matter if he's a scumbag or not? Why is this bigger news than what's happening in Georgia or other parts of the world? Are Americans really that dumbed down to accept this crap as newsworthy, let alone the subject of a lengthy interview? Please.

And why do you as a Canadian care? For dismissing this as "dumbed down" and "crap", you keep coming back to the trough to feed on it.

As for your comments that Edwards is no longer involved in politics, that is false.

He was invited to the DNC later this month until his little episode hit national news. He was reportedly going to be considered for an Obama cabinet position, most likely Attorney General.

Tales from the Trail » Blog Archive » Obama says John Edwards won’t be at Democratic convention | Blogs | Reuters.com

I don't recall anyone saying that the Edwards story was bigger than the events that are unfolding in Georgia, but the Edwards story is definitely newsworthy, and should be making headlines.

FOX news didn't create the story, John Edwards did, and he is perpetuating it, by continuing to lie about it.

Sir Loin · Aug 11, 2008

Middleground said:
Did you see the piece?

Yes I did and after Dan’s midway hawking I was expecting something more like a “smoking gun” but got another dud. Which is what I usually find when I bother to explore the latest “Fox News is” ballyhoo.

Middleground said:
Do you call that journalism? I call it a big pile of steaming poop.

The same kind of poop was being perpetrated across the media spectrum. Yet as is usually the case, criticism is offered from the usual sources for….ta dah…Fox News.

Middleground said:
Even the interviewee wanted to change the subject, and mentioned more than once that the American people wanted more substance to their news.

Me thinks someone lets their imagination run at warp speed. So Ms. Erbie appeared in her role as columnist to specifically discuss the Edwards situation, but wanted to change the subject? What pray tell would she be talking about and why would she be given air time on the TOPIC otherwise?

Middleground said:
So what does the jackass anchor do? He brings up Edwards again, LOL. What a joke "news" has become.

It was the subject after all. Hello McFly

Sir Loin · Aug 11, 2008

Middleground said:
And why do people care about Edwards? He's no longer in politics. So what does it matter if he's a scumbag or not?

Because people are people, might as well ask why the sky is blue too. Why should poor little John Edwards get a pass on being exposed as a scumbag?

Middleground said:
Why is this bigger news than what's happening in Georgia or other parts of the world?

It is not bigger news than the situation in Georgia or elsewhere. Why do you think otherwise? Have you got some first hand information that says so?

Middleground said:
Are Americans really that dumbed down to accept this crap as newsworthy, let alone the subject of a lengthy interview? Please.

Three minutes is a lengthy interview?As your take on the situation does not approach realistic, your question is really a bromide. Please.:roll:

Zyphlin · Aug 11, 2008

First, can I just say that Dana complaining about ANYONE talking about:

1) penis's constantly
2) reporting on the same kind of news involving penis's over and over again

Is just utterly hillarious.

Second, nice selective viewing there Dana. Yep, I know when I was flipping around the news channels today every otehr channel was just 24/7 Georgia stuff. I didn't even realize Edwards even was HAPPENING till I turned onto Fox. :roll:

Thirdly, once again, just like with Clinton, Dana completely misses the point. Surprise surprise, he claims people are just focusing on the "penis" when, in reality, its HE who is focusing on it. The people that are bothered by this are not bothered simply by the cheating. Its the fact that a man that could've been Vice President, a man that was running for president, a man that was rumored to be another VP consideration or cabinent member if Obama wins, flat out lied and continued to lie over and over again with a straight face over this matter. Maybe Dana doesn't care about politicians blatantly being liars, perhaps he doesn't have an issue with politicians showing that they are untrustworthy as they lie to the face of the American people with no remorse and no real sign that they're doing it, but a lot of people do have issues with it.

But yes, all of this, every bit of it, is centered squarely and singularly on Fox News, no one else is showing it, and its all simply because of outrage that Edwards put his penis in someones elses slit. That's exactly what the story is.

ReverendHellh0und · Aug 11, 2008

Zyphlin said:
Second, nice selective viewing there Dana. Yep, I know when I was flipping around the news channels today every otehr channel was just 24/7 Georgia stuff. I didn't even realize Edwards even was HAPPENING till I turned onto Fox. :roll:

funny, why are you signling out FOX? what is your point. Are you suggesting the MSM blacked it out? That I could see. Or are you suggesting that FOX has an agenda here?

But yes, all of this, every bit of it, is centered squarely and singularly on Fox News, no one else is showing it, and its all simply because of outrage that Edwards put his penis in someones elses slit. That's exactly what the story is.

Again what is the point you are tryng to make regarding fox news.

Zyphlin · Aug 11, 2008

Step one...read dana's post.

Step two...remove your personal bias and distaste for me

Step three...read my whole post.

Step four...read your post.

you should see where the disconnect occured.

Middleground · Aug 11, 2008

Sir Loin said:
The same kind of poop was being perpetrated across the media spectrum. Yet as is usually the case, criticism is offered from the usual sources for….ta dah…Fox News.

Yup, I agree. The poopie clip provided is from some asswipe pretending to be a newscaster on Fox Network. I'd love to diss other poopie clips from other networks if you want to share. Having said that, it would be really hard to top the poopiness of this broadcast.

Me thinks someone lets their imagination run at warp speed. So Ms. Erbie appeared in her role as columnist to specifically discuss the Edwards situation, but wanted to change the subject? What pray tell would she be talking about and why would she be given air time on the TOPIC otherwise

If so, they she's just as stupid as the dufus newscaster. I guess quality people are hard to find, eh? Having said that, the ironies of ironies is Ms. Erbie stating more than once that the public would rather get real news (my paraphrase), but yet dufus newscaster keep on harping on the most idiotic stuff that sounded like it could have came from Joan Rivers.

It was the subject after all. Hello McFly

It appears so. And covered in the most pathetic way.

Middleground · Aug 11, 2008

Sir Loin said:
Because people are people, might as well ask why the sky is blue too. Why should poor little John Edwards get a pass on being exposed as a scumbag?

Because there are so many other scumbags out there that do scumbag things that no one ever hears about. Sure, it's a story, but it's nothing to harp on, IMO.

It is not bigger news than the situation in Georgia or elsewhere. Why do you think otherwise? Have you got some first hand information that says so?

It shouldn't be, but is it? I don't know.

Three minutes is a lengthy interview? As your take on the situation does not approach realistic, your question is really a bromide. Please.:roll:

About 2 1/2 minutes longer than it should have been.

Sergeant Stinger1 · Aug 11, 2008

P/N said:
You failed to use the word "alleged" in your statement, but I'll forgive you this time. Just because someone accuses someone of something, it doesn't necessarily make it true. If I accused you of having sex with goats, does that make it true? O'Reilly is a celebrity and people are going to take shots at celebrities, it happens each and every day. Bottom line (back on topic of the thread) is I could care less what O'Reilly, Clinton or even Edwards does in his spare time. But the major difference is that O'Reilly is a pundit, he is not a public official, such as Clinton and Edwards were. Edwards looks like a major hypocrite for having done this. His political future is over and FOX News should give it a rest.

-
'Alleged' Good point but when a payout is made its the same as saying someone really did something.

Singularity · Aug 11, 2008

independent_thinker2002 said:
From your source:

The deal likely involves payment of millions of dollars to Mackris, since the two sides were discussing an offer of well over $2 million when negotiations broke down, say sources close to O'Reilly. Both parties agreed to keep the details confidential, according to the statement.

The settlement has been rumored at 10 million dollars.

I must be missing where this claims O'Reilly paid money to Mackris. I see the terms "the deal likely involves payment" and a nebulous claim about sources "close to O'Reilly", but what sources? And where is the definitive that O'Reilly was guilty and had to pay the money?

Again, I aint buyin' it. I need actual proof, and looking at it as objectively as I possibly can, I really don't see any evidence that O'Reilly sexually harassed the woman. It's a shame she can't answer the extortion charges, though. I'd love to hear her side of it for a more detailed picture.

Sir Loin · Aug 12, 2008

Middleground said:
Yup, I agree. The poopie clip provided is from some asswipe pretending to be a newscaster on Fox Network.

Well in this case, as in so many, poopie is in the eye of the beholder. I watched the clip and I appreciate the hard questions. I’m not for giving politicians and the crap excuses they make a pass. Ever. I have no problem with a TV newscaster asking any of the questions asked in this interview.

Middleground said:
If so, they she's just as stupid as the dufus newscaster. I guess quality people are hard to find, eh? Having said that, the ironies of ironies is Ms. Erbie stating more than once that the public would rather get real news (my paraphrase), but yet dufus newscaster keep on harping on the most idiotic stuff that sounded like it could have came from Joan Rivers.

Yes, well the public (all over the world) does enjoy getting the real news as well as the salacious. So pointing at a news report made the eve of the news story, no matter your inability to understand it’s consequence/relevance/newsworthiness is hardly out of line.

Middleground said:
Because there are so many other scumbags out there that do scumbag things that no one ever hears about. Sure, it's a story, but it's nothing to harp on, IMO.

So this should not be story and no news agency should report on the story because other less famous, less rich former POTUS and VPOTUS’s don’t get their stories told. As the story was still “hot”, the “harp” claim is completely vacuous.

Middleground said:
It shouldn't be, but is it? I don't know.

Clearly.

Middleground said:
About 2 1/2 minutes longer than it should have been.

Now I am starting to detect some serious poopiness, alas it is from you and your posts my dear.

Middleground said:
I'd love to diss other poopie clips from other networks if you want to share. Having said that, it would be really hard to top the poopiness of this broadcast.

Sadly talking on the “poop” level IMO accurately categorizes your points thus far.

Lerxst · Aug 12, 2008

Jesus Middleground, you sure know how to these guys panties all knotted up and in their cracks. Careful now, they may start really being nasty. You know your Canadian opinion isn't worth the paper it's printed on right?

:rofl:rofl:rofl

Sir Loin · Aug 12, 2008

JeffMerriman said:
Jesus Middleground, you sure know how to these guys panties all knotted up and in their cracks. Careful now, they may start really being nasty. You know your Canadian opinion isn't worth the paper it's printed on right?

:rofl:rofl:rofl

Contribution from the Not Fox Fans Players:
Penis Envy. Check.
Poopie reporting. Poopy people. Check.
Panty wad cross talk. Check.

Talk about a Cleveland Steamer of a thread:roll:

Thorgasm · Aug 12, 2008

Singularity said:
I must be missing where this claims O'Reilly paid money to Mackris. I see the terms "the deal likely involves payment" and a nebulous claim about sources "close to O'Reilly", but what sources? And where is the definitive that O'Reilly was guilty and had to pay the money?

Again, I aint buyin' it. I need actual proof, and looking at it as objectively as I possibly can, I really don't see any evidence that O'Reilly sexually harassed the woman. It's a shame she can't answer the extortion charges, though. I'd love to hear her side of it for a more detailed picture.

Read the court papers.

O'Reilly Hit With Sex Harass Suit - October 13, 2004

Clinton Penis Envy Redux at FOX News

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

Member

Master of Shenanigans

Hung like Einstein

Bus Driver to Hell

Sexual Deviant

Leaves it to Beaver!

Sexual Deviant

Leaves it to Beaver!

Sexual Deviant

I don't respect you.

Leaves it to Beaver!

Leaves it to Beaver!

Hung like Einstein

U mad bro?

Bus Driver to Hell