O'reilly is a glob of steaming, stinking crap. So what else is new?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

While Bushies are frightening and contemptible enough, seeing the name of the reprehensible Bill O'Reilly in the same article as the name Walter Cronkite disturbed me deeply. Must be a kind of oxymoron.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Phone sex pervert pig Bill O'Reilly should quiver in the shadow of Walter Cronkite like a scared little finch who flew into a picture window. Yet again, he twists words and embellishes to excite and poison the narrow minds of the moronic masses who follow his every imagined "war". His acetic personality will continue to eat through the fabric of our society and promote hate amongst us all. Let us only hope his career is not nearly as long as Mr. Cronkite's.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

some of the people some of the time O'Reilly, you just have to keep repeating your disinformation. Walter Cronkite has always been for truth and justice, peace be on his house.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"A year earlier, in a bizarre segment with Drug Policy Alliance executive director Ethan Nadelmann, following the drug czar's cue, O'Reilly tried to paint marijuana and ecstasy users as supporting terrorism. When Nadelmann explained that neither drug had much to do with Afghanistan or Al Qaida, and that ecstasy was being manufactured in Holland, O'Reilly objected."

Homegrown marijuana cuts terrorists completely out of the loop. As with all right-wing Christians, O'Reilly lets his beliefs trump facts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

privatized prisons are a booming industry and just as fast as they build a new one they are filled with more drug users, and the ones holding stock in these prisons are frothing at the mouth, and have bulging pockets, so if you dont have a conscience for locking up drug users who really have a health issue, then i guess one could say the drug war has/is won, if you are one who is addicted to money and your eyes are glazed over with dollar signs, I'd rather support drug lords or small time drug dealers, than drug dealing doctors who are stingy with drugs and get to go on vacation to hawaii while small time drug dealers fleeing poverty sit in prisons doing free labor for our country, i havent met a neighboring american yet who didnt send money home to their mothers, take incredible risks to do so and work some long hours . i just trust these drug dealers more than i do the arrogant drug dealing doctors of privledge and the pharmecutical companies spouting billions in revenue. Some of us are in pain and its a lot cheaper to get some heroin than go to a doctor, maybe get a script, then pay outragous prices for the pills if you are lucky enough to convince them your pain is real, so walter cronkite at your age you probably have some pain killers in your cabinet and your insurance is covering the cost, and o riley, your just addicted to your loud mouth and i wish you'd take a few valium and chill

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't know why you spend so much time on this guy o'reilly, he thrives on that, it is his job and takes precious space. Better pay attention to a Cronkite. Slowly, people like him are beginning to pay attention to the fact that a lot of the drug on war has more to do with who makes a profit and I don't mean the dealers by that than to what could help this disease.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

his fetish nee MANIA in advocating ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT unfortunately paints him as a hypocrit when it comes to freedom. His United World Federalists and his Humanist Manifesto pals are no friends of freedom. The abolition of the United States and the elimination of acknowledging ANY religious tradition or inference by Govt and society in general.....Walter tirelessly promotes these two horrible agendas....he doesnt have to promote Soviet communism anymore.......is HE to be trusted either?????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is this the Peabody Award winner? The "wait, wait, don't lie to me" guy?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's an honor to be scorned by O'Reilley. Like a rite of patriotic passage.

An award should be given to all who bear the wounds of battling with these Tele-Cons. Brave souls each. It's almost an embarrassment NOT to be hated by O'Reilley.

"How evil would someone have to be, that Bill wouldn't hate them?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One important key element in the current supply and demand is the gigantic increase of the production of Opium and Heroin from Afghanistan. Something that was almost close to 0 during the last few months of the Taliban.

This important fact has been side stepped by almost all internation main stream media. The disasterous impact of this is now destroying the middle east an Europe, since the price of heavy drugs has gone done by almost 80% in some places since the fall of the Taliban.

This makes you wonder if the free world soldiers in Afghanistan are there to stop Bin Laden or create a safe heaven for the drug loards who are now a major part of the "free and democratic" Afghanistan?

The gross production of opium in Afghanistan is now about 4000 metric tons, and stands for almost 52% of the GDP of Afghanistan.

This is the shame of the Nato and the US government, but instead, we hear the president of the US calling Afghanistan a great example of success.

Sure it is a success, but for whom? And who pays the price?

/Farhad Abdolian

PS. Check the ADB review and United Nations office on drugs and crime for more information on this subject.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bill O'Reilly isn't fit to lick Cronkite's boots. He's even got an online petition now to get MSNBC to cancel Keith Olbermann.

Keith, you're in some mighty august company!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oreillly, the hack wannabe "journalist" (bright yellow journalist) should go expire on the floor, hopefully on his show for retards.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...go home and have a scotch why don't you...

Alcohol is the most abused "drug" in the west, not e or mary-jane...

Sure, crack and heroine et al are problems, but they're relatively minor, and the users need compassion, not jail. Obsessive-Compulsive personalities can get addicted to anything, including alcohol (W), cigarettes, food, money, power, crack, and in bill's case just being an asshole. Bill, you're overdue for a trip to AA (asshole's anoymous).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I wouldn't be surprised if O'Reilly, like so many of your garden-varity conservatives, is pushing a little pot or coke or prescription drugs out of the back of his tv studio. Illegal drugs have a terrific profit margin and it's all untaxable profit.

If so-called "recreational drugs" are ever legalized then many a White suburban Republican household might have to decalre bankruptcy. The sale of illegal drugs by white suburbanites is a tax free, cash boost to the economy. And if the "war on drugs" takes inner city black and Latino kids off the streets, that just eliminates the competition.

The "war on drugs" has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Walt should go on the O'Reilly factor. When that flaming bag of regret, Oreilly, pulls his normal crap it will look like he's bullying our beloved old grampa Walt, and expose O'Reilly for the thug he is. The K-man can hold his own on that show, if there's one thing he's good at by now it's remaining civil under pressure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think O'Reilly has a "rant of the day" list where he makes note of the stories of the day and then chooses someone to scream at.

When I think of Walter Cronkite, I remember him sitting for hours on end on stories such as President Kennedy's death or the initial events in the Space Program or farther back, when I was a teenager, as the host on "You Are There". However, when I look at O'Reilly, I still see him as the anchor man on "Inside Edition" or whatever mud raker show he used to be on. Actually, when you think about it he hasn't really moved very far, has he?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We should be applauding Bill O'Reilly for his role in current GOP slump. Going forward, the democrats need to associate every Republican with Bill O'Reilly just like the GOPers associate every democrat with Ted Kennedy.

Bill O'Reilly = the GOP. That should be enough to win the next couple of elections.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The other aspect of the war on drugs is the deliberate targeting of political activists by undercover drug officers. Anyone involved in any kind of activism needs to view drugs with serious suspicion. I've had officers try and sell me LSD and methamphetamine; don't think this isn't happening. The depth of corruption that the war on drugs has engendered is pretty shocking. Try reading the new book "Down By The River" for an inside view of the massive amounts of money and corruption involved in the illegal drug trade.

Of course, you might also want to consider that big pharma has managed to increase sales by funnelling drugs onto the black market through global internet sales. This is why abuse of 'legal' prescription knockoffs of heroin, meth, cocaine, etc. is on the rise. These drugs trigger the same biochemical channels as do their 'illegal' counterparts, but are patented and legal; go tell your doctor you have 'back pain' and you can get whatever you want. Rotten, rotten, rotten. Do you really think O'Reilly isn't lining up coke every night? How else could he spew forth his nonsense? It's like the Catholic bishop's approach to child abuse: sure it happens, but we shouldn't TALK about it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who profits from the War on Drugs? Prison guards and administrators, criminal lawyers, corrupted cops and judges, probation officers, bail bondsmen, TV evangelists, DEA agents and conservative politicians.
One costly less publicized side effect: surrepticious military support for corrupt foreign regimes--disguised as aid for drug eradication.
The total cost to we taxpayers for all this BS is staggering.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"It's not that O'Reilly hasn't had the opportunity to know better. In fact, dope is one of his hot-button issues. . ."

Yeah – it should be one of his issues: that he IS one.

We've all encountered at one time or another one of those annoying, yappy little dogs that think they're all big and bad, straining and whirling as they mount they're useless little "attack" at the end of a leash. That's Bill O'Reilly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Should he opt to make a presidential bid, methinks O'Reilly would be wise not to expend too many campaign funds trying to win over this crowd.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

An enlightening interview with the author of "Down the River" is a most enlighening insider's view of the war on drugs.l Worth the read:
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/06/03/int06008.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PAIN RELIEF is big business for PHARMA. A watchdog group [Public Citizen Research Group] has recently petitioned the FDA because of the thousands of deaths related to the legal drug PROPOXYPHENE. It is a weak painkiller often combined with aspirin or acetaminophen. It is a toxic risk to millions of patients this group says, no more effective than aspirin and it is ADDICTIVE !!!!!!

Where is Bill O'Reilly, while millions are suffering, the effects of BIG PHARM's expensive toxic waste?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've supported a couple of smoked-out deadbeats in my town before with my pot habits, but never a TERRORIST. Besides, even if Bill is right, drugs fund terrorists because they're ILLEGAL. This is an argument against prohibition, not for it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Normaly I would not justify the fountain of crap that spews from the likes of O'Reilly, Hannity or Coulter with a response.
But if O'Reilly's illinformed words bring attention the cause, then great!
If I was Mr. Cronkite, I wouldn't give Or'Reilly the attention he struggles for.


linked text

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I want O'Reilly calling for the arrest and imprisonment of Rush Limbaugh, but it won't happen. See, O'Reilly's idea of a dangerous drug addict is anyone who might rip off his car stereo. And every last Dutch person.

The man is a human spleen in a bad suit and a worse rug. He deserves no more attention than the village idiot who gets laughs by pissing himself in public.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's one of the principal sources for covert funding for their death squad and destabilization operations. Doubtless, under the cover of secrecy, various high-level CIA officials are pocketing the profits.

It's also a pretext for mass imprisonment within the US. If someone is a bit too politically active and on the wrong side of the powers-that-be, planting a bit of dope suffices to put them away for a very long time. The usual ethnic cleansing also goes on.

Prisoners of the Census has a bit of information on how this is furthermore used for direct political manipulation.

Also notable is that Wackenhut, a prominent facet of the prison-industrial complex, has many CIA -affiliated people on its board of directors. A number of other prominent companies and organizations of the prison-industrial complex have similarly ominous ties.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I got one thing to say to all you people: FOR GOD'S SAKE, GO VOTE!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is no cure for cretinisnm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No, really, it's a site, dedicated to correcting the unmitigated shite that pours out of O'Reilly's mouth, thereby redressing the balance.

www.sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com

Apparently, the site runner has challenged O'Reilly to put up or shut up and join him on a travelogue to Darfur, and is asking for people's support to convince him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Phil Smith's comment that 'drug-related violent crime is much more likely to be related to drug prohibition than the psyhcopharmacology of illicit substances, is either misguided, misinformed, wishful thinking, and/or ignores, or is not aware of the lessons of history, especially that of cocaine.

Prior to 1914 when cocaine was not prohibited, there was a widespread use of it both in the USA and the UK. It's use was initially pioneered by doctors and there is no doubt that as a local anaesthesia it was invaluable at that time. Alas many physicians also used it for personal reasons, and many of those became addicted. Articles in The American Medical Press from 1886 onwards will confirm that fact.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, no one contemplated the prohibition of cocaine, nor did anyone seek to condemn those who had become compulsive, and/or addicted users, on the contary, the outcome for such unfortunates was attributed to being ill advised by physicians.

The following 5/6 years saw a change in such liberal attitudes, as medical use was rapidly overtaken by more widespread use among the general and criminal populations, from there its use increased and it was particularly popular among the so called middle classes.

However it was among the criminal classes that usage remained high and the addictive nature of cocaine led to further violent crime in order to fund the habit for those who had become addicted, and used violent crime to fund their needs; this despite that fact that at that time cocaine was remarkably cheap at $2.00 an ounce.

Quite unfairly, much of this crime was blamed on black people, overlooking the fact that addiction is non discriminatory in nature. Addicted users robbed ordinary citizens, attacked police and raped women.

Inevetiably talk of prohibition emerged, some anti prohibition people, including many from the medical profession based their arguments on misleading statements, such as that if denied cocaine, people would turn to hard liquor which was much more dangerous. This groundless argument conveniently overlooked the fact that users were already using alcohol anyway, and had discovered the synergistic effect between both. Fuelled by high octane alcohol and cocaine all moral and personal values were forgotten in the need for funds to continue their habit, violent crime was rampant.

The anger felt by non users toward criminal and minority (blacks) users, who felt that their personal safety was in jeopardy, put pressure on their politcal representatives and laws were passed that cocaine could only be otained with a medical prescription. Now it is in this context that Smith has chosen to distort the truth, because of course what happened was that the criminal emelment in the underworld started to source and supply what was already an established need. violent crime associated with cocaine prior to this was already widespread, so I suggest to Smith that he checks his facts, because whatever his true reasons are for seeking to legalise cocaine, he cannot claim that it will reduce the violent crime associated with it. It was not until 1914 that cocaine was prohibited, and consumption declined until the 1960s.

As an addictions counsellor, I say to all users if your drug(s) of choice are not costing you any more than money, your money that is, then by all means keep going, enjoy! On the other hand if your habit is causing you mental, physical and personal problems, and leading you to harm others, do not blame prohibition for your problem.

Peter O'Louglin,

Addictions Counsellor UK.

Acknowledgements.

I am indebted to David T. Courtwright and the Karl Loren website and also to Professor David Clark of Swansea UK, for the valuable information they have published, which allowed me to write most of the foregoing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

i hope when o'reilly dies that his brain is cut in half and examined to find out where all the grey matter has turned to mush....he is nuts

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why don't bill and bush wise up?
sure the war on drugs is a multimillion dollar business what with testing labs, surveillance equipment trials and sales, Private prisons, and state driver licensing programs. and i do admit that man made compounds are a cancer on our society.
but it is a documented fact that legalized compounds are by far abused by more people than illegal compounds and the only cure for both is education at early age as to the effects on a persons body and mind.
What happened to organized crime after prohibition was repealed?
having said that lets talk about something as natural as air,
sun light, and GRASS. it was growing wild before man took his first step it will be around when he takes his last.
unlike those with an agenda like Bill O'realy's it is obvious that grass is a god given commodity mostly harmless and deserving of being separate from the man made compounds that are sucking the the life out of the hopeless unemployed that are self medicating themselves in order to shut out the reality that O'riley and all those like him puke out.
If bush and his war mongering fuko friends ever figured out that they could fund all the wars they wanted by simply legalizing grass subsidizing tobacco farmers to grow it and collecting ten our fifteen dollars in war tax on each pack the war mongers would have what they wanted all along. a subdued public that would fund their wars for them.
they would have it on the shelves in one year.
the sales slogan ( buy a pack of Victory smokes for Freedom).
Or forget about wars and use all the tax revenue for social programs, U.S. inferstucture, and health care god only knows how much good that much money could do here. maybe even have enough left to rebuild the gulf coast? HUMMM!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bill O'Reilly is as incompetent as the Bush administration he represents.He is nothing more than a loud mouth attack dog for the republican party.He is tvs version of Rush Limbaugh.The only people that listen to him are the far-right neocons whose heads are so far in the sand(I'm being polite)they can't comprehend the damage they are doing to the country and the rest of the world.I believe they don't really care.It's all about them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Po' folks are drug addicts.
Rich folks have substance dependency problems.

Scapegoats are made of one.
Excuses are made for the other.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We always seem to need "a war on..." something. The war on drugs didn't work. The war on terror isn't working. Interesting that we have troops in Afghanistan, yet opium production is near record levels. So the fact is, we are conducting a war on terror with troops in a country with drugs and are loosing on all fronts.

And as far as O'Reilly is concerned, well, he is a liar and a fraud. Why anyone even listens to him is a mystery. One only need look at his face to see that he is a tangle of all that is bad in us, compressed and magnified. I think he should broadcast live from Main Street in Fallujah.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please someone, try!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The 'war on drugs' is something the government doesn't want to stop. It's a dandy means of laundering huge amounts of money...

And as far as Walter Cronkite goes, we need him to come back and save us from these idiots. I nominate Bill Moyers for President, Walter for Vice-President, and that reverend that gave chimpie hell at Coretta King's funeral for Secretary of State. And the Nobel Peace Prize. Oh, and Jimmy Carter for whatever. Maybe take over Condoleeza Rice's job...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Most amazing of all about O'Reilly -- and indeed much of the right wing -- taking this intense anti-drug stance is that it contradicts their position on virtually every other issue (with the possible exception of the imposition of nativist christianity on the rest of us), which is anti-government interference and pro- free market. Well, what could be more free market than me buying a joint from you and smoking it in my bedroom? Why should any of this be the government's business? A true small government conservative (i.e., William Buckley) would argue for the deregulation of controlled substances.
It goes to show that O'Reilly, Limbaugh and the rest are just hot air and full of excrement, with no honesty, consistency or real ideology (or is it that the drug laws in this country, racist in their inception, impact most heavily on poor and non-white males, and those people scare the crap out of our friend Bill?)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I guess it is safe to assume this is not the Conservatives Uber Alles Conference. Sorry for barging in like this. Please remember that even though Billy happened, he really was Mother O'Reilly's only mistake. To err is human and though Billy was a humungous "err," we can't hold it against his mom.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Free Drugs + Communism = BAD
Drug Sales + Free Enterpise = GOOD.
If free enterprise ran the drug business we would have low cost, good quality, abundance of supply to meet the market, hmmm? Does not appear to be working. Has Communism interfered? No, but Big Gov't has! Solution: Get Big Govt out of the drug business & let the Mob/Free Enterprise run it! Nope, that does not work. That is the current system & how well is that working? Hmm? HMM? Jail the users! Kill the producers! (Worked fine for the Taliban!). So what is the solution? Let everyone produce thier own? All drugs or just the "organics", ie opium, pot, ?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The other aspect of the war on drugs is the deliberate targeting of political activists by undercover drug officers.

I was at Burning Man a few years ago. There was a lot of paranoia about undercover police officers setting up people by offering them drugs. Of course, it was perfectly legit for people to drink alcohol--plenty of bars at Burning Man handing out free liquor and I wonder how many undercover cops drank themselves into comas after a hard day of arresting pot smokers?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

and Bill O'Reilly is a total far-right douchebag, but he masks it (poorly).

[« Reply to this com