He did apologize. Its true he went on to criticize her for other reasons which you might consider "not the right thing" But this title is a lie he did apologize for his original remark and admitted he took it out of context. You might not like what he said afterword but we must be fair: he did apologize. Watch the other clips on youtube
And the Supreme Court has ruled that it is necessary to not only prevent government discrimination against people because of arbitrary traits, but also force government to overcome the difficulties caused thereby. And example is Lau v Nichols.
Meanwhile the Duke LaCross Team is still waiting for their appology from Duke University, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, ABC Time Magazine and Newsweek for being called racist rapists. Still waiting........
@GOPforever8374 , well im assuming the apology is evident on another tape, because it sure as heck ain't evident here....van jones, van jones, van jones, how in the hell did the conversation become about van jones??? OH I KNOW, its called a diverrrrsion.
@aynota If you watched O'Reilly you would know he did on Wednesday at the beginning of the show. You're right, it's not evident here, because dishonesty is how the left in this country operates.
Youtube will not allow me to post the link, but just type in Shirley Sherrod: Bill O'Reilly Continues FOX Attack, and the video of O'Reilly apologizing to Sherrod, and discussing Matthews' prediction is available there.
O'Reilly did apologize to an extent, and even shows Matthews' prediction in his talking points memo. The video on this page is Matthews from Monday evening if I'm not mistaken. Tuesday was the night that O'Reilly had the debate with Colmes and McCallum, and then Wednesday, when the truth came out, O'Reilly apologized for not viewing the video in its entirety.
@stackamillion You had faith in that whack job? The next thing you know you'll have faith in Mel Gibson. What a dildo. Faith? WTF is wrong with you? All he does is spew what Rpger & Rupert tell him to. The media is on the ropes because Murdoch and NewsCorp. are corrupt criminals. They always ha have been.
@eqsmooth Yes as he maybe, I expect human decency from everyone. As much as an ignorant prick, he does hold an unique point of view and he is one of the better ones on that bias network. So I do listen to him as I do everyone, just to see everyone's point of view so I can put everything together and make my own decision on a subject. He does sometime show a side in particular cases that happen to be the truth as does everyone, and remember I said it earlier it's capitalism, he's making money.
Many of the comments here are absolute fucking bullshit. O'Reilly went on the air last night and apologized for jumping the gun on the story and not doing his own investigation first. The fact of the matter is he only played what the White House themselves used to call for Sherrod's resignation. They asked for her to resign BEFORE Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity or anyone else ever had a chance to run the story. The truth is that the White House fucked up. Point the finger THERE!
Funny, how O'Reilly pretends to be "Fair and Balanced" while prompting his guests to spew bias towards whomever or whatever their target is at the time.
As for Sherrod, Fox News is afraid she's going to come after them and Breitbart in the form of a lawsuit for damaging her reputation, which ultimately led to her resignation. Now, they are going to try and paint her as an extreme Partisan. Problem is that she wasn't representing the her employer (U.S. Government) when she gave her speech.
O'Reilly is one of the many idiot demons that does Fox News' bidding. To expect anything less than what he said about Sherrod is hoping for too much.
That said, the different races exist for a reason, and therefore should be appreciated and respected; but should not matter. Now, when Sherrod said, "...His own kind..." I don't think she said it with malice or hatred in her heart, it was based more on age, culture, and regional connotations...
Bill's statement at 6:51 about Kool-aid is as racist, or more racists then what Shirley had said. Slavery in America is dated back as far as the 1560's and didn't officially end until 1865 or 1928 within the Peonage of Alabama. No matter what you want to believe in numbers, slavery has lasted 82-145 years longer then it has ended.
I can't believe what a fucking idiot this guy is. I have family members who listen to him. By the time this show aired, the full tape was released, and he didn't bother to watch it? She was talking about a revelation she had that it wasn't about black, or white, it was about 'poor'. It was a very touching speech, she was ambushed by that tea party guy and now this asshole is giving his opinion without knowing the whole story?
i find it interesting that the media is bending over backwards to admit they were wrong about sherrod (which they should do). but still have have not apologied for saying the tea party was spiting on and calling black congressmen the n-word on the day of the health care bill.
@bigbigmjfan dems will get pounded in november. not sure they will win both the h & s, but they will win atleast one. nearly everything is going the GOP way at this point.
@biggd29 I don't think so. I think in a NORMAL environment the Republicans would take it. But IMO between the Tea Party, Fox News, and the withholding of unemployment among other things I don't believe they'll take it. I believe in silent majorities. Just like when Michael Jackson died all of this adulation came out of nowhere when people thought there could be no love left. I realized then we could never ignore the silent majority. There's just not enough minorities or independents to vote Rep.
ahh are the "progressives" having a tissy over this? That makes me so sad. and just a few months until november. you were the ones who brought race baiting into it by unfairly calling rand paul a racist. well what goes around comes around. tic toc tic toc
We didn't call him a racist, we called him a racist-appeaser. Which he is. He would make private sector racism legal if he could. He clearly showed he wouldn't make a law preventing private institutions from instating segregation again if he could on the Rachel Maddow Show.
@nafaidni He's concerned about the abuse of the commerce clause. if ad hominem attacks are going to be used then what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Segregation is unconstitutional because of the 14th Amendment, as is Congress' power to stop it. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws... The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
The Civil Rights Act enforces the 14th Amendment by preventing any individual from being forced from using a service open to public due to their race
@nafaidni no one questioned it. Paul's concern is not whether a state should be able to make or enforce a law denying equal protection. He's concerned that the Commerce clause is being used outside its intent. For instance, should the commerce clause be used to regulate the buying and selling of guns. You need to listen to the interview very closely. If you want to understand Paul a little better read "Pauls opthalmological crusade" by Ben Smith. Its on politico.
That's totally irrelevant. I responded to your claim that progressives called him a racist. I used his lack of assent for the Civil Rights Act to show he appeals to racists.
Why bring up this? This is totally irrelevant. No one even said the word "gun" or "commerce" in this entire comments page until you did.
P.S. The Federal Government definitely needs to regulate gun sales. Not even the majority of Republicans would be against barring felons from buying handguns.
@nafaidniPaul questioned the last article of the civil rights act. most articles in the civil rights act pertain to laws the state can make and actions the state can take. The last article regulates private entities through the commerce clause. the commerce clause has been used to regulate the flow of goods through out the US.(in commerce) I was using the sale of gun as an example of congress trying to put in place gun control by misusing the commerce clause.
@nafaidni these issues are more complicated than you are being led to believe. this is why paul said "shouldn't a private business be able to not allow people to enter with guns." if the federal government can enact any regulation on us using the commerce clause we will live in much worse totalitarian society. support for gun control is at an all time low
Just to let you know, Paul does seem to support letting private businesses prevent people from bringing guns into pubs. He simply said the Second Amendment shouldn't apply to that, since it's a bad idea to get armed men drunk.
Use context before making conclusions.
And again, that Article defends the 14th Amendment by preventing discrimination. It is in the Government's right to enforce equality of birth. Therefore, any action challenging it can and should be illegal.
Ha Ha...meanwhile he features a clip of her speaking to CNN. Is this guy retarded? He's like Ron Burgundy, he'll just read whatever's on the teleprompter!
He did apologize. Its true he went on to criticize her for other reasons which you might consider "not the right thing" But this title is a lie he did apologize for his original remark and admitted he took it out of context. You might not like what he said afterword but we must be fair: he did apologize. Watch the other clips on youtube
cshoem3793 1 year ago 4
And the Supreme Court has ruled that it is necessary to not only prevent government discrimination against people because of arbitrary traits, but also force government to overcome the difficulties caused thereby. And example is Lau v Nichols.
nafaidni 1 year ago
I like O'Really, but here he made a huge mistake.
That woman maybe is a racist but she is trying to change.
When whites do the same, they are looked with suspicious.
What we know for sure is She is not color blind at all.
Edwardbrooklyn 1 year ago
pretty hilarious when fox news attempt to talk about journalism
ahabthewhaler 1 year ago
O'Reilly appologized the next day...
Meanwhile the Duke LaCross Team is still waiting for their appology from Duke University, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, ABC Time Magazine and Newsweek for being called racist rapists. Still waiting........
MetalDetroit 1 year ago
Chris Matthews said O'Reilly would apologize and correct his mistake and he did. The title makes no sense.
GOPforever8374 1 year ago
@GOPforever8374 , well im assuming the apology is evident on another tape, because it sure as heck ain't evident here....van jones, van jones, van jones, how in the hell did the conversation become about van jones??? OH I KNOW, its called a diverrrrsion.
aynota 1 year ago 2
@aynota If you watched O'Reilly you would know he did on Wednesday at the beginning of the show. You're right, it's not evident here, because dishonesty is how the left in this country operates.
GOPforever8374 1 year ago
Youtube will not allow me to post the link, but just type in Shirley Sherrod: Bill O'Reilly Continues FOX Attack, and the video of O'Reilly apologizing to Sherrod, and discussing Matthews' prediction is available there.
FRI1986 1 year ago
O'Reilly did apologize to an extent, and even shows Matthews' prediction in his talking points memo. The video on this page is Matthews from Monday evening if I'm not mistaken. Tuesday was the night that O'Reilly had the debate with Colmes and McCallum, and then Wednesday, when the truth came out, O'Reilly apologized for not viewing the video in its entirety.
FRI1986 1 year ago
In other words, I don't believe he did it because he believes what he is saying, he's doing it for the money.
stackamillion 1 year ago
Damn I had faith in Bill too, oh well it's capitalism we gotta make money.....................
stackamillion 1 year ago
@stackamillion You had faith in that whack job? The next thing you know you'll have faith in Mel Gibson. What a dildo. Faith? WTF is wrong with you? All he does is spew what Rpger & Rupert tell him to. The media is on the ropes because Murdoch and NewsCorp. are corrupt criminals. They always ha have been.
eqsmooth 1 year ago
@eqsmooth Yes as he maybe, I expect human decency from everyone. As much as an ignorant prick, he does hold an unique point of view and he is one of the better ones on that bias network. So I do listen to him as I do everyone, just to see everyone's point of view so I can put everything together and make my own decision on a subject. He does sometime show a side in particular cases that happen to be the truth as does everyone, and remember I said it earlier it's capitalism, he's making money.
stackamillion 1 year ago
Many of the comments here are absolute fucking bullshit. O'Reilly went on the air last night and apologized for jumping the gun on the story and not doing his own investigation first. The fact of the matter is he only played what the White House themselves used to call for Sherrod's resignation. They asked for her to resign BEFORE Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity or anyone else ever had a chance to run the story. The truth is that the White House fucked up. Point the finger THERE!
MilkyLicker3587 1 year ago
Fox news and the Tea Party are racist pigs!
poohbudpita 1 year ago
Colmes seems interested in the truth while Crowley just repeat O´Reillys talkingpoints like a parrot.
Graysonisright 1 year ago
HAHAHAHA IDIOT!!
amindbody 1 year ago
Funny, how O'Reilly pretends to be "Fair and Balanced" while prompting his guests to spew bias towards whomever or whatever their target is at the time.
As for Sherrod, Fox News is afraid she's going to come after them and Breitbart in the form of a lawsuit for damaging her reputation, which ultimately led to her resignation. Now, they are going to try and paint her as an extreme Partisan. Problem is that she wasn't representing the her employer (U.S. Government) when she gave her speech.
NomadicAddict 1 year ago
O'Reilly is one of the many idiot demons that does Fox News' bidding. To expect anything less than what he said about Sherrod is hoping for too much.
That said, the different races exist for a reason, and therefore should be appreciated and respected; but should not matter. Now, when Sherrod said, "...His own kind..." I don't think she said it with malice or hatred in her heart, it was based more on age, culture, and regional connotations...
NomadicAddict 1 year ago
Bill's statement at 6:51 about Kool-aid is as racist, or more racists then what Shirley had said. Slavery in America is dated back as far as the 1560's and didn't officially end until 1865 or 1928 within the Peonage of Alabama. No matter what you want to believe in numbers, slavery has lasted 82-145 years longer then it has ended.
thirty8dreadz 1 year ago
I can't believe what a fucking idiot this guy is. I have family members who listen to him. By the time this show aired, the full tape was released, and he didn't bother to watch it? She was talking about a revelation she had that it wasn't about black, or white, it was about 'poor'. It was a very touching speech, she was ambushed by that tea party guy and now this asshole is giving his opinion without knowing the whole story?
He, and people who listen to him make me sick
petulant2u 1 year ago
i find it interesting that the media is bending over backwards to admit they were wrong about sherrod (which they should do). but still have have not apologied for saying the tea party was spiting on and calling black congressmen the n-word on the day of the health care bill.
biggd29 1 year ago
I don't want to hear nothing from Fox News. I stopped watching 6/25/2009 and I'm STILL mad about that episode.
bigbigmjfan 1 year ago
@bigbigmjfan You "don't want to hear nothing from Fox News" ?
Does that mean that you do want to hear something from Fox News ?!?
MetalDetroit 1 year ago
Republicans will not win in November.
bigbigmjfan 1 year ago
@bigbigmjfan can you clarify your comment? what exactly mean they won't "win"? I'm basicly asking you to define win.
biggd29 1 year ago
@biggd29 Oh they'll win "some" seats but that big takeback they're hoping for?
Nah......
bigbigmjfan 1 year ago
@bigbigmjfan dems will get pounded in november. not sure they will win both the h & s, but they will win atleast one. nearly everything is going the GOP way at this point.
biggd29 1 year ago
@biggd29 I don't think so. I think in a NORMAL environment the Republicans would take it. But IMO between the Tea Party, Fox News, and the withholding of unemployment among other things I don't believe they'll take it. I believe in silent majorities. Just like when Michael Jackson died all of this adulation came out of nowhere when people thought there could be no love left. I realized then we could never ignore the silent majority. There's just not enough minorities or independents to vote Rep.
bigbigmjfan 1 year ago
Meanwhile...Bill O'Reilly is silent. When he speaks -- he'll blame EVERYBODY like shill he is.
ottoskidoo 1 year ago
ahh are the "progressives" having a tissy over this? That makes me so sad. and just a few months until november. you were the ones who brought race baiting into it by unfairly calling rand paul a racist. well what goes around comes around. tic toc tic toc
tonylee1973 1 year ago
@tonylee1973
We didn't call him a racist, we called him a racist-appeaser. Which he is. He would make private sector racism legal if he could. He clearly showed he wouldn't make a law preventing private institutions from instating segregation again if he could on the Rachel Maddow Show.
nafaidni 1 year ago
@nafaidni He's concerned about the abuse of the commerce clause. if ad hominem attacks are going to be used then what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
tonylee1973 1 year ago
@tonylee1973
Segregation is unconstitutional because of the 14th Amendment, as is Congress' power to stop it. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws... The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
The Civil Rights Act enforces the 14th Amendment by preventing any individual from being forced from using a service open to public due to their race
nafaidni 1 year ago
@nafaidni no one questioned it. Paul's concern is not whether a state should be able to make or enforce a law denying equal protection. He's concerned that the Commerce clause is being used outside its intent. For instance, should the commerce clause be used to regulate the buying and selling of guns. You need to listen to the interview very closely. If you want to understand Paul a little better read "Pauls opthalmological crusade" by Ben Smith. Its on politico.
tonylee1973 1 year ago
That's totally irrelevant. I responded to your claim that progressives called him a racist. I used his lack of assent for the Civil Rights Act to show he appeals to racists.
Why bring up this? This is totally irrelevant. No one even said the word "gun" or "commerce" in this entire comments page until you did.
P.S. The Federal Government definitely needs to regulate gun sales. Not even the majority of Republicans would be against barring felons from buying handguns.
nafaidni 1 year ago
@nafaidniPaul questioned the last article of the civil rights act. most articles in the civil rights act pertain to laws the state can make and actions the state can take. The last article regulates private entities through the commerce clause. the commerce clause has been used to regulate the flow of goods through out the US.(in commerce) I was using the sale of gun as an example of congress trying to put in place gun control by misusing the commerce clause.
tonylee1973 1 year ago
@nafaidni these issues are more complicated than you are being led to believe. this is why paul said "shouldn't a private business be able to not allow people to enter with guns." if the federal government can enact any regulation on us using the commerce clause we will live in much worse totalitarian society. support for gun control is at an all time low
tonylee1973 1 year ago
@tonylee1973
Just to let you know, Paul does seem to support letting private businesses prevent people from bringing guns into pubs. He simply said the Second Amendment shouldn't apply to that, since it's a bad idea to get armed men drunk.
Use context before making conclusions.
And again, that Article defends the 14th Amendment by preventing discrimination. It is in the Government's right to enforce equality of birth. Therefore, any action challenging it can and should be illegal.
nafaidni 1 year ago
Matthews and crew misunderstands the Frank Luntz Strategy:
You NEVER admit your'e wrong, you blame your critics of something worse!
YOURINQUIRER 1 year ago
Ha Ha...meanwhile he features a clip of her speaking to CNN. Is this guy retarded? He's like Ron Burgundy, he'll just read whatever's on the teleprompter!
gavrilo2007 1 year ago
@gavrilo2007
I'm Bill O'Reilly?
17R3W 1 year ago