Bill O'Reilly is Completely Dishonest

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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..
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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..........
 
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?"
 
Last edited:
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...vative-group-says-youll-be-imprisoned-not-ha/
 
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.
 
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.
 
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."
 
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...vative-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.
 

Back
Top Bottom