Capital One expresses ‘regret’ for O’Reilly’s offensive show, does not ‘endorse the views/opinions.’
Capital One expresses ‘regret’ for O’Reilly’s offensive show, does not ‘endorse the views/opinions.’
Responding to our Stop The O’Reilly Harassment Machine campaign, Capital One issued this statement:
Thank you for contacting Capital One. We regret that you found the Bill O’Reilly programming during which one of our ads was aired to be offensive. Please be assured that this was not our intent. Capital One in no way endorses the views/opinions portrayed during the news broadcasts in which we advertise.
Understanding that Capital One did not sanction or approve O’Reilly’s conduct, we hope the company has enough “regret” to urge the Fox News host to shut down his “ambush journalism” unit. If you haven’t done so, please take action. We’ve added more O’Reilly advertisers to our campaign. So even if you’ve taken action before, consider doing so again.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
It sounds like the common refrain (based on Ford yesterday, and Capital One today) is “we’re sorry you found it offensive, but we’re gonna keep supporting his show with our ad dollars because lots of people watch”.
Given that kind of response from the advertisers, do we have any real expectation that reaching out to them will have the desired effect? Perhaps we’d be better off supporting our own advertising campaign, documentary, etc., pointing out exactly how offensive, hypocritical and dangerous Billdo really is — after all, expecting corporate fat-cats to do the right thing when there is money involved has been proven time and time again to lead only to our disappointment…
March 26th, 2009 at 12:45 pmHey Bill-O, ain’t democracy a b*tch?
March 26th, 2009 at 12:45 pmthe only language the childish repuglicans understand is to take away their baba
March 26th, 2009 at 12:46 pmShouldn’t the replies from these advertisers be forwarded to FOX and, specifically, to O’Reilly? I think they should, especially if there are comments that indicate a lack of support or outright disagreement with O’Reilly’s position.
March 26th, 2009 at 12:46 pmya know, i fully understand this action, as billo attacked one of your own, but, where’s the ‘take action’ link directed at limpballs, beck, etc?
keep that in mind… we need more action like this…
March 26th, 2009 at 12:46 pmWe regret that he picked on Amanda.
March 26th, 2009 at 12:47 pmIt’s the standard non-apology apology. “We regret that you found this offensive.” Translation: “We regret that you totally lack a sense of humor and are so PC that you were offended. Tough beans.”
They certain did not express regret for O’Reilly’s offensiveness, only that they upset some potential customers.
March 26th, 2009 at 12:47 pmGummitch #8: my point exactly (see #2), just expressed less verbosely. Thanks.
March 26th, 2009 at 12:47 pmSlightly off-topic but still within the general category of repugnant ambush-artists and hate-mongers –
The Boston Phoenix has named Limpballs as the “Unsexiest Man of the Year”. Here’s a great excerpt explaining the reasons for choosing him:
“America’s ugliest moment of 2009? Rush Limbaugh, his man-boobs a-jiggle, bouncing at the CPAC podium to bask in the sickly glow of conservatism’s orgy of greed, avarice, and arrogance,” the paper writes. “Here, at last, was the shining image of the 21st century Republican Party: a leeringly rich Baby Boomer squatting at the top of the mountain, reaping his jollies from the suffering of those at the bottom, praying for the failure of hope.
“If this hypocritical and morally repugnant reformed Oxy junkie wants to discuss “failure,” maybe we should talk about his career as an NFL commentator — or the last time he detoxed off prescription smack,” they add.
I think we should all jam up his email box with congratulatory notes. Here’s his address –> elrushbo@eibnet.com
March 26th, 2009 at 12:50 pmTranslation: “We don’t love Bill O’Reilly, we’re just paying him for our pleasure”. See, Bill, you really are a corporate-whore.
March 26th, 2009 at 12:51 pmBoycott Brillo’s sponsors. More and more people should send these corporate sponsors messages that their products/services will not be used. They will take notice when their sales drop dramatically.
March 26th, 2009 at 12:52 pm.
B O Y C O T T
F O X P R A V D A
$ T H E I R
S P O N S O R S
.
March 26th, 2009 at 12:54 pmand, if you could’ve heard the tool that just called in to ed schultz, you would know what a detrimental affect the billo-limpballs-becks of the world are having… and include bozell in that, as that’s what the caller STARTED to talk about…
ed promised to have the audio on his site soon…
http://wegoted.com/
till then, be very wary of “blue eyed” “self-employed” “ex-cop” types, ’cause he’s likely to do serious harm… to liberals, of course…
i really didn’t think i’d be MORE scared with dumbya out of office…
March 26th, 2009 at 12:54 pmThe Dogfather Says:
Gummitch #8: my point exactly (see #2), just expressed less verbosely. Thanks.
You should see how I edited a “memo” from one of our IT network guys.
March 26th, 2009 at 12:55 pmTranslation:
March 26th, 2009 at 12:56 pm“We regret that you found his content offensive. However, we sell too much cr*p to the morons who watch him for your complaint to make any difference in our position.”
Here’s an idea… call the police if O’Reilly’s goons are stalking someone.
March 26th, 2009 at 12:57 pmThe sponsors need more. They need to be told that, regardles of the advertising ideology that they like to parade that, “Well, we HAVE to advertise where there are ratings and it has nothing to do with content”, their advertising ON a show indicates that their company supports the content of the show.
That is why we call them “sponsors”.
Any advertiser CAN select the programming they advertise on, OR they can specify that they do NOT want their ads aired on particualr programs. There is a kind of advertising ’space’ that they can buy that leaves the placement to the discretion of the station, but they do not HAVE to utilize that form of advertising. They CAN opt-out of a show if they so choose.
Sending the mail is an important part, but even more so is to
March 26th, 2009 at 12:58 pmSo Ford and Capital One have no ethics, I get it. But how is Billo responding to all this publicity? His major advertisers are admitting he is a idiot. Somehow, I think Faux News is in a very happy place right now. Could Glen Beck push Billo out of his beloved time slot? Time will tell…
March 26th, 2009 at 12:59 pmHey there everyone…Yesterday I concluded Ford was not an option anymore…and today…Capital One your not an option either.
Boycott these ass H. corporations…lets show them what real power “is”. In the past corporations had no problem dropping there promoters when something “bad” happens like…smoking from a bong….ewwwww that’s real bad…snark.
But it seems that stocking somone across state lines (which is a federal crime…did you hear that billo) is perfectly fine by Corporate standards.
This is absolutly clear….WE ( THE PUBLIC) ARE NOT THE ONES WHO DON’T HAVE THERE PRIORITIES RIGHT!!! Bong and all!!!
Corporations….how does it feel to be hated by almost all of America???? Almost all refers to the 20% re-pugs!!
March 26th, 2009 at 1:02 pmNothing is more dangerous than a cornered, wounded animal.
March 26th, 2009 at 1:03 pmOf course they don’t. If they had any ethics they wouldn’t have been outsourcing American jobs as fast as possible for the past 25 years.
March 26th, 2009 at 1:09 pmWTF? I was typing and it posted. Damn…
In addition to sending a mail, stop using the products. Cancel your services, etc., and tell them why. Then tell friends and family to do the same. That is where the effect comes in.
March 26th, 2009 at 1:10 pmCapital One expresses ‘regret’ for O’Reilly’s offensive show, does not ‘endorse the views/opinions.’
This is SOP, not news.
March 26th, 2009 at 1:10 pmCSH Says:
Capital One expresses ‘regret’ for O’Reilly’s offensive show, does not ‘endorse the views/opinions.’
This is SOP, not news.
Agreed – this is a form letter. No intent to act in any different manner.
March 26th, 2009 at 1:12 pmFord is also a major contributor to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, whose mission is to spread disinformation about climate change.
March 26th, 2009 at 1:13 pmCageyCretin Says:
[...]
their advertising ON a show indicates that their company supports the content of the show.
exactly. thank you.
i had to explain that logic to a family member who is a local business owner and advertises on the radio station… he did some checking for me and found out it was not the limpball show…
i was somewhat assuaged…
but that’s all it is – the businesses are thinking only of the number of ears, and no other message but their own…
i saw the lightbulb go on when i explained the connection.
maybe if we all asked those we know if they know what their advertising dollars really ARE buying…
March 26th, 2009 at 1:13 pm2. The Dogfather Says: It sounds like the common refrain (based on Ford yesterday, and Capital One today) is “we’re sorry you found it offensive, but we’re gonna keep supporting his show with our ad dollars because lots of people watch”.
My read exactly on yesterday’s thread about Ford. They issued a statement to walk a line between ‘denouncement’ and continuation of policy. They’re gambling on the reach of O’Reilly, versus the influence of TP and its viewers.
Another tack would be to post the advertisers less-than-ethical conduct, such as Ford’s famous flammable cars; the Pinto, F-150 and Crown Victoria and their cowardly response to rectifying these situations. As long as the articles are in the public domain, highlighting them again is the last thing these advertisers want. (Just as MSNBC didn’t want any further discussion of Cramer’s beat-down by Stewart.)
Maybe even a blogroll of O’Reilly advertisers’ worst behavioral moments. TP would also have to consider, were they to adopt this strategy, their own advertiser viability, of course.
Thorny question, it is…
March 26th, 2009 at 1:23 pmheir advertising ON a show indicates that their company supports the content of the show.
No, it doesn’t.
March 26th, 2009 at 1:24 pmWhenever I clicked to send the letter, it apparently went to an employee at Volvo because I received an e-mail from him telling me he received my message by mistake.
March 26th, 2009 at 1:26 pmkaty Says:
but that’s all it is – the businesses are thinking only of the number of ears, and no other message but their own…
Precisely. The business model has gotten so focused on the bottom line that they neglect any other consideration.
It is that attitude that has created the atmosphere that we have today where most major businesses view their employees as liabilities, not assets.
And it apparently has blinded them to the fact that regardless of how THEY view it, their sposorship of a program by advertising on that program endorses the program’s content. It is basic psychology, and the business world was aware of this in the early days of television where they were attentive to the content that they advertised on (admittedly if you go early enough you find corporate sponsors who pretty much owned the shows they sponsored — e.g. the Jack benny Show (the colgate/Lucky Strike hour).
Lucky’s taste better, so round, so firm, so fully packed.
March 26th, 2009 at 1:29 pmshoeless@24, Touche! Your right. But I wonder how Billo feels about these guys thinking he is a big joke.
March 26th, 2009 at 1:30 pm31. CSH Says: heir advertising ON a show indicates that their company supports the content of the show.
No, it doesn’t.
They pay to perpetuate the content. They proactively subsidize the continuation of O’Reilly’s activities. That translates to, at the very least, tacit tolerance and acceptance of the program contents and the association of it to their product.
The result is not significantly different between the two concepts.
March 26th, 2009 at 1:31 pmCSH Says:
heir advertising ON a show indicates that their company supports the content of the show.
No, it doesn’t.
Yes it does.
(insert soundbyte of Michael Palin, “This isn’t an argument.”)
March 26th, 2009 at 1:32 pmAlthough I’m tempted to respond to trolls, I will now switch my Troll Blocker => ON
March 26th, 2009 at 1:33 pmnone of the people who buy these spots care whats on as long as there are eyes watching. unless we can actually reduce bill-0’s viewership, the sponsors will keep buying the spots. maybe we should try to get an anti-o’reilly spot on during his time-slot… maybe make it like those great ads that had people using rush’s words verbatim.
March 26th, 2009 at 1:35 pmI distinctly remember seeing hundreds of “Obama” adds ran on Fox News during the campaign. Was Obama paying to “perpetuate the content? Was Obama “tolerant and in acceptance of the program contents” of Fox News?
March 26th, 2009 at 1:35 pmwatchdog Says:
Maybe the janitor at UPS can issue an apology on behalf of the company. Keep your fingers crossed.
Personally I don’t care if the company’s mascot issues an apology. The company needs to remove their advertising from the program if they disagree with the program’s content. Leaving their advertising on the program, particularly after being told about that content, IS a VERY complicit agreement with the content.
What would the ratings be if there were no sponsors? (it IS a trick question…..)
March 26th, 2009 at 1:36 pmThese two from yesterday bear reposting; they hit the mark:
Pretty much…
March 26th, 2009 at 1:37 pmSo by this argument, Ford is saying if Hitler had high ratings they would have gladly advertised on his show of insanity?
If you’re an idiot you might believe that.
March 26th, 2009 at 1:39 pmAre there some sour grapes going around about this campaign?
Why do you people supporting the sponsors hate the capitalistic market (where this kind of activity is EXPLICITLY a PART of the system)?
I thought the right and particualrly the corporate lovers just LOVE them some capitalism. Why cry about it when it is used in its correct manner?
March 26th, 2009 at 1:40 pmWhy stop sponsoring O’Reilly..you sponsor where there are viewers..if he went to Obermann..well who watches that? I am independent, but I do see the ratings. As far as Ford and the other US automakers go, when unions stop demanding more money than most teachers make for doing manual labor, then maybe the US auto market will become competitive. (there sure is alot of hatred and meaness spewed here)
March 26th, 2009 at 1:44 pm40. Hank Says: I distinctly remember seeing hundreds of “Obama” adds ran on Fox News during the campaign. Was Obama paying to “perpetuate the content? Was Obama “tolerant and in acceptance of the program contents” of Fox News?
Of course, the money the Obama campaign paid Fox went to perpetuate the NewsCorp content. They also accepted the likely result of entering into Fox’s advertising model. (Add to the idea, certainly not an excuse but a consideration, that Obama was campaigning and advertising against Fox standard ideological policy.)
Citing Obama doesn’t exonerate the advertisers who do it.
March 26th, 2009 at 1:45 pmHank Says:
——————————————————————————–
So by this argument, Ford is saying if Hitler had high ratings they would have gladly advertised on his show of insanity?
If you’re an idiot you might believe that.
No, Hank, that is PRECISELY what is being offered as excuse: they are not “sponsoring” the show, they are just putting their advertisements up where the most people watch. That is all. By that justification, they WOULD advertise in any market that has what they deem as “high ratings”, regardless of content.
Or, do you concur that sponsors are linked with the content of the shows they sponsor, AT LEAST in the perceptions of the average viewer?
March 26th, 2009 at 1:45 pmFlagged for abusive, defamatory post.
March 26th, 2009 at 1:47 pmCapital One in no way endorses the views/opinions portrayed during the news broadcasts in which we advertise.
The part they got wrong was the ‘news broadcast’ depiction.
March 26th, 2009 at 1:47 pmkmac813 Says:
In my opion, Ms. Terkel raped Alexa – and then she feigns indination while stoking the flames of her actual agenda which is “attack O’Reilly”.
Before anything else, do you care to qualify this statement in a rational manner? Do you even have a CLUE what you are talking about?
March 26th, 2009 at 1:48 pm45. kmac813 Says: In my opion, Ms. Terkel raped Alexa – and then she feigns indination while stoking the flames of her actual agenda which is “attack O’Reilly”.
Of course you do, hoey, because republicans can only express disagreement in inappropriate extremes; for example, kmac, your cosmic stupidity and cognitive dissonance has raped others’ intelligence.
March 26th, 2009 at 1:50 pmAs far as Ford and the other US automakers go, when unions stop demanding more money than most teachers make for doing manual labor, then maybe the US auto market will become competitive.
As far as Ford and the other US auto makers go, when we get serious about Universal Healthcare and stop making manufacturer pay for health care then maybe the US auto market will become competitive. (there sure is a lot of nonsense about unions spewed on the right…)
March 26th, 2009 at 1:53 pm46. kitnip45 Says: (there sure is alot of hatred and meaness spewed here)
I agree, but there’s no way to filter you inbreds out, yet…
March 26th, 2009 at 1:53 pmkmac813 and kitnip45
Watch out for insect bites while you’re here.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dixie_native/1090483796/
March 26th, 2009 at 1:54 pmkitnip45 Says:
Why stop sponsoring O’Reilly..you sponsor where there are viewers..
Because sponsorship is endorsement. If they endorse the content, then by all means, continue to advertise. You can spin all you want, but that fact remains.
I am independent,
I don’t care if you’re a Martian. That has no bearing on the validity of your comments.
As far as Ford and the other US automakers go,….
Ah, a complete non-sequitor and off topic (though vaguely related — very vaguely) — but you couldn’t pass the opportunity to throw in this little gem of a weather-beaten talking point.
March 26th, 2009 at 1:55 pmOT, but I am finding it a little disturbing how cavalierly the right is using extreme sexual and extremely violent imagery when they speak these days. What is the psychology behind this?
March 26th, 2009 at 1:57 pmCSH Says
March 26th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
heir advertising ON a show indicates that their company supports the content of the show.
No, it doesn’t.
________________________________________________________
Of course it does, whether the company intentionally supports the show or not.
Bill O’Reilly wouldn’t be on at all (much less collect his big fat salary) if it wasn’t for the advertiser dollars paying to keep him on the airwaves. The company can claim not to support the show, but as long as they are paying for it, that’s exactly what they’re doing.
Just as when I send in my contribution to my local classical music station, I am paying to keep their programming on the air, and I am doing so because I support their content. If I didn’t support their content, I sure as heck wouldn’t be sending them my money.
March 26th, 2009 at 1:58 pm.
FLAG THE TROLL
Hank = CSH
FLAG THE TROLL
.
March 26th, 2009 at 1:58 pmkmac813-
disgusting and insulting language. I’m sure you didn’t think of it, and it sounds like it came straight from Bill O’Reilly’s brain to yours. did you read the initial Terkel post about O’Reilly? Are you completely unaware of what’s happened? You have 0 critical thinking skills.
kitnip45
Right, like conservatives don’t corner the market in spewed meanness. Are you trying to morally shame a progressive blog site FOR PROGRESSIVES? pathetic. You’re damn right I’ll be mean to you, because you’re completely ignorant, off topic, and intrusive on a subject you don’t have the brainpower to work through.
March 26th, 2009 at 1:59 pmAlmost but not quite as offensive as Billo are the Capital One advertisements
March 26th, 2009 at 1:59 pmoh god, I just realized that O’Reilly has released some new minions from the hive to give TP hell. sigh. i think those U.S. drones have more brains than these people.
the worst is to think that they feel satisfied disrupting threads on a blog. Conservative political action at its best, yuck yuck!
March 26th, 2009 at 2:01 pmInteresting thread. A number of years ago Subaru made it a point to advertise their cars in a certain manner and wouldn’t buy time on a hate mongering show.
I don’t watch O’Rielly so I’d be interested to know if Subaru advertises there. It kind of puts to the test the “advertise where the viewers are.”
March 26th, 2009 at 2:01 pmI’ll take a stab at it: Uh….Fascistic sadomasochistic paranoid schizophrenic pre-pubescent idiotic disorder?
March 26th, 2009 at 2:01 pmRealness Says:
Don’t those two names look very much like computer generated names? From the same program?
Well, those posters sure sound like they are both reading from the same talking points sheet.
March 26th, 2009 at 2:01 pmCagey Cretin,
I believe it’s a populist tactic for a country that has serious violent tendencies to work out. While conservative ideology robs citizens, shrinking the middle class, waging war on workers, the citizenry are disenfranchised and angry. The GOP has always been better at aggressive messaging to channel that anger (sadly cause largely by them), and using it for their own political gain.
However, the Democrats message we hope and change, and they won, so theirs some optimism for you.
March 26th, 2009 at 2:04 pmpastcaring Says:
#57 CageyCretin Says:
OT, but I am finding it a little disturbing how cavalierly the right is using extreme sexual and extremely violent imagery when they speak these days. What is the psychology behind this?
I’ll take a stab at it: Uh….Fascistic sadomasochistic paranoid schizophrenic pre-pubescent idiotic disorder?
Whoah. Sounds incredibly serious. But shouldn’t there be some indication of “entitlement” and “victimization” (as separate from sadomasochism, as they are) in there, as well?
March 26th, 2009 at 2:05 pmRealness Says: @66
Yep.
March 26th, 2009 at 2:07 pmThis is true, but keep in mind, I’m not a professional, I only play one on the net.
:>
March 26th, 2009 at 2:08 pmAll these trolls who are actually arguing that O’Reilly’s advertisers, whose money goes to support the show, aren’t actually supporting the content of the show….*cartoon head-shake*
They surely must all work for Verizon….
March 26th, 2009 at 2:10 pmrape
verb
4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
I certainly did not mean “rape” in a sexual content. I meant it as Ms. Terkel taking away from the good work of Amanda to forward her agenda.
I realize it was too harsh a term and for that I apologize.
My point is, how did Amanda “help” Alexas foundation by dragging out O’Reilly’s past? Did she think she was performing a public service?
March 26th, 2009 at 2:10 pmGod they lie as easily as they breathe. They will stay with O’rally until his ratings go down. Follow the money.
March 26th, 2009 at 2:13 pmkmac813 Says
March 26th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
In my opion, Ms. Terkel raped Alexa – and then she feigns indination while stoking the flames of her actual agenda which is “attack O’Reilly”.
___________________________________________________________
Um…have you actually READ Amanda’s original post? Or are you just repeating O’Reilly’s talking points?
If you dare, check this out: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/01/oreilly-rape-speak/
The point of the post was that a man who had made controversial comments concerning a rape and murder victim was going to be speaking before a group dedicated to helping rape victims. Please note that Amanda never said anything against Alexa or the Alexa Foundation. Please note also that Amanda quoted O’Reilly verbatim with practically no editorial comment of her own.
It’s a big stretch to arrive at the conclusion that “Ms. Terkel raped Alexa”. Would you like to share with us how you figure? In detail, please. Oh, and don’t bother with the debunked idea that Amanda instigated and encouraged a hate mail campaign against Alexa unless you can give us some proof. We already know Bill-o is lying through his teeth on that one.
March 26th, 2009 at 2:15 pmkmac813:
yes- a reporter provides a public service by often exposing hypocrisy, which ultimately would take away from the effectiveness of the Alexa foundation. Information should not be hidden from the public, if a public figure like O’Reilly has a questionable position in regards to the subject of rape, which a lot of people see as misogynist and harmful to the discussion of rape. There are a lot of organizations dealing with sexual abuse towards women, there would definitely be many who would not contribute to one of these organizations that has been associated with Bill O’Reilly, because of past statements he made. He would do more harm than good.
March 26th, 2009 at 2:15 pmYes, I paid for the gun and I paid for the bullet. Yes, I pulled the trigger, but I never endorsed the damage and resultant death during my bullet’s airborne behavior.
Therefore, I’m not responsible for the association some want to draw of my bullet and the unconnected death that happened during my bullet’s flight path; despite my sole ownership of the bullet and my sole choice of aim.
It’s not my fault because I didn’t endorse the consequences….
March 26th, 2009 at 2:19 pmRe: #71
She attempted to help the Alexa people by pointing out that a good many people are offended by BO and his attitude of blaming the rape victim – those who are offended will surely not contribute to the Alexa Foundation, because by putting BO up front, they sacrifice credibility. I would and have given to such causes – but the Alexa Foundation is off the list if they cannot manage their message any better this. They clearly lack the seriousness that I require to pony up my hard-earned dough
March 26th, 2009 at 2:20 pmWow, where to start…
How about this:
You’re going with this? Unions are bad because they hate low wages?
March 26th, 2009 at 2:21 pmhansiro – #75 – perfect!
March 26th, 2009 at 2:23 pm71. kmac813 Says:
rape
verb
4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
I certainly did not mean “rape” in a sexual content. I meant it as Ms. Terkel taking away from the good work of Amanda to forward her agenda.
Yes, so very appropriate in reference to a rape crisis center. So you’re saying your only sin was being shamelessly ignorant and tactless? We do share a measure of agreement on that point, but in my case, that’s where my observation of your attributes only begins….
March 26th, 2009 at 2:24 pmI have notice that many of the rightwingers who periodically show up here at TP have numbers in their screen names, often large numbers. Is this to identify which hive they belong to, for example entity 45 of the kitnip hive?
March 26th, 2009 at 2:30 pmYou state a reporter provides public service by exposing hyprocrasy..but rant against O’Reilly when he goes after judges who give hand slap sentences to child rapists, They do try and contact these judges through normal channels, but usually get no response. I really do have much sympathy for child rapists.
I did expect to get punched around in here..but I am used to it…between living in MN and having a SO who is ubra liberal..I am fairly thick skinned.
March 26th, 2009 at 2:37 pmI think they stop off at a central station in the morning, exchange their brains for coffee, donuts & their talking points and then they beat feet to get over here, in the vain hope they will actually provide their own lives with meaning and relevance.
Unfortunately, it’s not to be. I’ve had better conversations with crazy, homeless people at the Long Beach Transit mall.
March 26th, 2009 at 2:38 pmI meant I DO NOT have sympathy for child rapists! I should proof read better!
March 26th, 2009 at 2:39 pmWhoops!
March 26th, 2009 at 2:42 pmO.o
March 26th, 2009 at 2:42 pmThe only person harming Alexa, or her Foundation, is Bill0 himself. And he’ll keep on hurting her to prop up his fragile ego. He’s graduated from a piece of sh!t to a huge, steaming, pile. A vast mound of excrement. A mountain of filth.
That being said, I think it would be a great shame if people denied donations to the Alexa Foundation. In fact, I think it would be fantastic if everyone with the means sent them a donation along with a note explaining that we are saddened that their good work has been tainted by Bill0’s tirades, tantrums, and lies. It would disgust me if we who despise Bill0 made his lies come true.
March 26th, 2009 at 2:53 pmAw crap! Here’s the rest.
The only way to shame a shameless bully like Bill0 is to apologize for him.
March 26th, 2009 at 2:56 pmYou know, I am a progressive hillbilly. This means that while I believe in progressive issues, I also carry a gun. Some skumbag gets in my face and intimidates me, well, I may just have to intimidate him back. Billo, send your boys to MY house!
Amanda, next time get one of them to TOUCH you. Just TOUCH you. Then scream “get off of me!” loudly and call 911. Let them call Billo for bail money. It’s called assault. No, it’s not right, and it’s not fair, but it’s also not right or fair that they harass you on your own time. It’s also chickensh*t as hell. But, what do you expect from skum that work for him?
March 26th, 2009 at 2:57 pmThe Dogfather Says:
It sounds like the common refrain (based on Ford yesterday, and Capital One today) is “we’re sorry you found it offensive, but we’re gonna keep supporting his show with our ad dollars because lots of people watch”.
Given that kind of response from the advertisers, do we have any real expectation that reaching out to them will have the desired effect? Perhaps we’d be better off supporting our own advertising campaign, documentary, etc., pointing out exactly how offensive, hypocritical and dangerous Billdo really is — after all, expecting corporate fat-cats to do the right thing when there is money involved has been proven time and time again to lead only to our disappointment…
Wow…getting off our @sses and doing something productive instead of going the “Duh, two wrongs make a right” path of harrassing more people with our emails.
Perish the thought!!!!
March 26th, 2009 at 3:31 pmkitnip45 says:I really do have much sympathy for child rapists.
Freudian slip? How many kids have U raped today?
March 26th, 2009 at 4:13 pmAbout my immediate post above.
March 26th, 2009 at 4:15 pmI couldn’t resist throwing that one in, the Devil made me do it. :-)
Good job.
Keep it up TP
March 26th, 2009 at 11:05 pmWhat a joke. You people really think that Capitol One is going to pull their advertising on the highest rated cable show of the decade. LOL. Please…get a grip. lol!
March 27th, 2009 at 2:35 amstephen109 Says:
What a moron you are. Do you have anything to say that doesnt involve mindreading? My GOD you are stupid
March 27th, 2009 at 2:54 amYou just keep following me around. I’m honored. Thank you.
March 27th, 2009 at 3:12 amstephen109 Says:
HA. I post in whatever thread I happen to read. When I read a REALLY stupid troll like YOU making threats and spewing ignorance I respond because it amuses me to do so. You are stupid. You didnt impress me or motivate me anymore than the last fifty or so morons I responded too. You are a dime a dozen punk not even THAT much stupider than most the rest
March 27th, 2009 at 6:00 am