Reply #71: What weaseling! [View All]

If I was hearing O'Reilly correctly, he basically claimed that Gross was an accessory to libel by allowing Franken's claims to go unquestioned, right? And then he went on to refute Franken's statement that O'Reilly had claimed to win a Peabody.

But his only defenses for this line of reasoning are that 1) he 'misspoke' rather than lied (*snort*), and 2) he has since corrected his earlier 'error' on his show. Er...how does this invalidate Franken's statement? How does it make it fallacious?

PS: I don't watch 'The Factor', so I'm not part of the 'in-crowd' to whom O'Reilly is preaching. But does he really use the word 'fallacious' that often when speaking to a FAUX audience?