Brave New Films: Fox’s Bill O’Reilly in confrontation with Obama staffer at rally.
Paddy
· 1 year ago
I'm thinking there is bound to be some gooooood video of this eventually.
flo
· 1 year ago
Can't wait for the video. My guess? Oh lufa is working on a (sniff) "story" on how Obama and other Dems are freezing out faux. A tear jerker from a ...........well...........jerk.....
mellowjohn
· 1 year ago
in billo's world, it's all about billo. the rest of just are just props.
Paddy
· 1 year ago
It's probably about how unfair they all are to boycott "Fair & Balanced" Faux..... but it may be harder to make that point now though....
ohdave
· 1 year ago
Mellowjohn is right.
O'Reilly is trying to get some victimhood he can play up to try to win ratings back. If he can get arrested at a Dem event that would be the high point of his career. He could go on his show and say how the Dems are afraid of free speech, different ideas, and so forth. It's all theatrics on billo's part.
Republicans love nothing more than feigned victimhood. For evidence look no further than the Fla. recount protests.
flo
· 1 year ago
I'd pay money to see o huey debate, say........Bill Clinton. Oh what fun.........
Tina
· 1 year ago
Fox news is horrible. O'Reilly is a dick. EVERYONE know's that. If someone wants the real news, they don't go to Fox, PLease. Fox is in the same category as TMZ.
BigBadSeattleLad
· 1 year ago
... and 'Tina' is yet another Democratic intellectual.
BigBadSeattleLad
· 1 year ago
Yes, Eve dear, I do so frequently. Your point?
Paddy
· 1 year ago
Her point is BBSL (which sounds like a sex want ad acronym btw) that you have to be willfully ignorant to think that Bill O'Reilly is fair, balanced or even coherent. Willfully ignorant people choose to get their "news" from Faux ergo (as my philosophy prof used to say) you, our very own BBSL, watch Faux!!! Easy, no?
BigBadSeattleLad
· 1 year ago
(Reply to Paddy)'Faux' - that's cute... is that your own or is it borrowed from your 'philosophy prof'? I'm sure Eve appreciates you explaining her point for her. Actually I'm a bit of a 'current issues' junkie and watch ALL the 'Big 3' (MSNBC, CNN, FOX). I am, however, sufficiently detached emotionally to let a bit of intellect and reason determine which points of view carry more validity for me. Over thirty years experience abroad (among those characters and temperaments upon whom our future lies) also may permit some insight that one's time in the college library may not....
Paddy
· 1 year ago
LOL, BBSL!!! Good try. I'm not without my trips to foreign lands, including the last time I was having to swear to everyone I met that I hadnot voted for Bush or shared his positions. Became rather reflexive after a while.
Also, I was not answering for Eve, but because I get these comments right away I just felt compelled to respond.
Sorry, have to run. I'm playing the Rudy Giuliani 9/11 Drinking Game™ during the debate and I need to open another bottle.
Steve McNamara
· 1 year ago
I am not an American - I am a British citizen - But I cannot believe the way that this guy is being treated by Fox News. (The spin stops here!) They never mention him - They talk about Mit Romney none stop - They talk about every other candidate - But never Obama. They do not like him. They want to take him down. They are unbalanced and right wing. As a neutral observer I would say, "Fox News is the American Taliban".
BigBadSeattleLad
· 1 year ago
(I was the latest anonymous - still no attacks?) Earth to Steve: Well, thank the gods that your a Brit... maybe we can use that as an excuse to excuse the fractured logic - dim, very dim. And speaking of dim... I too must 'smile' when I imagine our resident twit, Eve - struggling with her own deductive faculties, finger firmly planted up the nose.
It was not I that alluded to prior studies in philosphy - that was the defender of resident twits, Sir Paddy.
I merely suggested that one should not allow emotion cloud reason and that an ability to see the West from the East (through Eastern eyes) and vice versa may be pertinent in current affairs - period.
Perhaps your Royal Twitness could take the finger out long enough to key in an explanation as to how, in following your particular brand of "logical deduction" that my words are interpreted as a declaration of "how brilliant and superior" I am(?).
TAH
· 1 year ago
Always a pleasure to see the Bush apologists getting it from all sides but I notice the usual suspects are missing from this particular debate.
Loathe as I am to pipe in in the middle of a schoolyard scuffle, but I must ask this question of the single fellow from Seattle,
Do you defend the actions of Orally regarding his actions toward the Obama staffer? Or believe his explanation of it? I notice that in all your posts you have failed to even mention the incident about which the post was created.
Or are we looking at the standard tactic of the Bush apologist. It's impossible to defend their actions so let's attack the attackers.
Your tactics are as transparent as the glass house you are occupying. Throwing stones in such a situation is not an advisable course of action.
Will
· 1 year ago
In case no one else noticed-the very thing that Dildo OReilly admits to doing...in other words...his own version of the even is ILLEGAL. I hate to break it to Papa Bear but it is actually a crime to 'force someone to move'. There is a name for that-it's called assault.
BigBadSeattleLad
· 1 year ago
Reply to'TAH' re "Standard Tactics":
I don't know enough from the shreds of facts surrounding the referred episode to either defend or condemn either party thus far. And neither do any of the dupes below who've already concluded that this 6'8" fellow was 'assaulted'.
My original comment on this subject was to Cliff's 'Cliff Note' (above) making this very point:
It may be best for one to suspend their emotion long enough to allow some intellect and genuine deliberation to shape one’s conclusions from time to time.
Sound reason, of course, will continue to be a casualty to the primal urges of the froth-mouthed haters of ‘all-things-Bush/Fox/Oreilly’.
Your own ‘standard tactics’, as so eloquently expressed by you and your witless comrades below, preclude such reason.
Falling Panda
· 1 year ago
This huge, 6'8" Obama guy was intentionally blocking O'Reilly's shot and he got what he deserved. Obama's people are terrified of Bill because they know that he's far more knowledgable about everything than thier own candidate.
festertime
· 1 year ago
knowledge
festertime
· 1 year ago
"terrified of Bill?" Who told you that? Was it Bill? BBSeat., don't use up all your fanciest words at once. Save some for the Rapture. It's gonna be dandy.
All Comments
O'Reilly is trying to get some victimhood he can play up to try to win ratings back. If he can get arrested at a Dem event that would be the high point of his career. He could go on his show and say how the Dems are afraid of free speech, different ideas, and so forth. It's all theatrics on billo's part.
Republicans love nothing more than feigned victimhood. For evidence look no further than the Fla. recount protests.
Also, I was not answering for Eve, but because I get these comments right away I just felt compelled to respond.
Sorry, have to run. I'm playing the Rudy Giuliani 9/11 Drinking Game™ during the debate and I need to open another bottle.
It was not I that alluded to prior studies in philosphy - that was the defender of resident twits, Sir Paddy.
I merely suggested that one should not allow emotion cloud reason and that an ability to see the West from the East (through Eastern eyes) and vice versa may be pertinent in current affairs - period.
Perhaps your Royal Twitness could take the finger out long enough to key in an explanation as to how, in following your particular brand of "logical deduction" that my words are interpreted as a declaration of "how brilliant and superior" I am(?).
Loathe as I am to pipe in in the middle of a schoolyard scuffle, but I must ask this question of the single fellow from Seattle,
Do you defend the actions of Orally regarding his actions toward the Obama staffer? Or believe his explanation of it? I notice that in all your posts you have failed to even mention the incident about which the post was created.
Or are we looking at the standard tactic of the Bush apologist. It's impossible to defend their actions so let's attack the attackers.
Your tactics are as transparent as the glass house you are occupying. Throwing stones in such a situation is not an advisable course of action.
I don't know enough from the shreds of facts surrounding the referred episode to either defend or condemn either party thus far. And neither do any of the dupes below who've already concluded that this 6'8" fellow was 'assaulted'.
My original comment on this subject was to Cliff's 'Cliff Note' (above) making this very point:
It may be best for one to suspend their emotion long enough to allow some intellect and genuine deliberation to shape one’s conclusions from time to time.
Sound reason, of course, will continue to be a casualty to the primal urges of the froth-mouthed haters of ‘all-things-Bush/Fox/Oreilly’.
Your own ‘standard tactics’, as so eloquently expressed by you and your witless comrades below, preclude such reason.
BBSeat., don't use up all your fanciest words at once. Save some for the Rapture. It's gonna be dandy.