O'Reilly has not always been my cup of tea so to speak

[eagle7_31]

Blog: The real reason the New York Times has it out for Bill O'Reilly

but the motives of the NY TImes are questionable as well. And the writer is quite correct in pointing out they would look the other way if this were Rachel Maddow or some other left winger.

 

[pismoe]

i hope that 'oreily' goes down if he did something he shouldn't have done . The pwick is a pwick and doesn't know what he is talking about when talking about guns so he is doing disservice to American Gun people . 'oreily' might be a rino , bush family type conservative but he is no Conservative imo !! 'dana perino' is no better , she might be 'oreily' replacement chick . ------------- i didn't check the link so just a comment on Pwick oreily and 'dana' bush girl perino Eagle !!

 

[ScienceRocks]

Women need to grow up and learn to respect others freedom of speech...Bunch of whiners.

 

[shockedcanadian]

O' Reilly is hit and miss. He is intelligent and dissects the opposing positions with skill that strengthens his arguments. It's sometimes his rabid style that doesn't suit me. Of course, this is an aside to any allegations, in that respect he must be held to account.

I respect direct discussion, but he often doesn't allow proper challenging of his arguments, something I see with Tucker as well. It's the format of their shows, condensed time with multiple guests. I prefer a couple of fewer guests with more debate, but whatever. They certainly entertain and present food for thought.

 

[Pogo]

Blog: The real reason the New York Times has it out for Bill O'Reilly

but the motives of the NY TImes are questionable as well. And the writer is quite correct in pointing out they would look the other way if this were Rachel Maddow or some other left winger.

They "would" huh.

---- Link?

Oh wait, that's right.... you can't link a speculation fallacy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

O' Reilly is hit and miss. He is intelligent and dissects the opposing positions with skill that strengthens his arguments. It's sometimes his rabid style that doesn't suit me. Of course, this is an aside to any allegations, in that respect he must be held to account.

I respect direct discussion, but he often doesn't allow proper challenging of his arguments, something I see with Tucker as well. It's the format of their shows, condensed time with multiple guests. I prefer a couple of fewer guests with more debate, but whatever. They certainly entertain and present food for thought.

Bill O' is the only political show I watch. I don't agree with him all the time, but watching or listening to people that have your exact same points of view can get boring.

I agree he interrupts his guests way too often. Let them speak left or right.

I hope he fights this newest charge. I get so irritated by rich people just handing money over to make an allegation go away. It only invites more of the same.

I particularly like what Trump said about those money whores that accused him of all sorts of things with no proof. Trump said he was going to sue them, and probably would have if he didn't win the election.

 

[BULLDOG]

O' Reilly is hit and miss. He is intelligent and dissects the opposing positions with skill that strengthens his arguments. It's sometimes his rabid style that doesn't suit me. Of course, this is an aside to any allegations, in that respect he must be held to account.

I respect direct discussion, but he often doesn't allow proper challenging of his arguments, something I see with Tucker as well. It's the format of their shows, condensed time with multiple guests. I prefer a couple of fewer guests with more debate, but whatever. They certainly entertain and present food for thought.

Bill O' is the only political show I watch. I don't agree with him all the time, but watching or listening to people that have your exact same points of view can get boring.

I agree he interrupts his guests way too often. Let them speak left or right.

I hope he fights this newest charge. I get so irritated by rich people just handing money over to make an allegation go away. It only invites more of the same.

I particularly like what Trump said about those money whores that accused him of all sorts of things with no proof. Trump said he was going to sue them, and probably would have if he didn't win the election.

If they accused him with no proof, why did he agree to give them all those millions of dollars?

 

[MaryL]

He is being hoisted on his own petard, as they say. It's delicious.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

O' Reilly is hit and miss. He is intelligent and dissects the opposing positions with skill that strengthens his arguments. It's sometimes his rabid style that doesn't suit me. Of course, this is an aside to any allegations, in that respect he must be held to account.

I respect direct discussion, but he often doesn't allow proper challenging of his arguments, something I see with Tucker as well. It's the format of their shows, condensed time with multiple guests. I prefer a couple of fewer guests with more debate, but whatever. They certainly entertain and present food for thought.

Bill O' is the only political show I watch. I don't agree with him all the time, but watching or listening to people that have your exact same points of view can get boring.

I agree he interrupts his guests way too often. Let them speak left or right.

I hope he fights this newest charge. I get so irritated by rich people just handing money over to make an allegation go away. It only invites more of the same.

I particularly like what Trump said about those money whores that accused him of all sorts of things with no proof. Trump said he was going to sue them, and probably would have if he didn't win the election.

If they accused him with no proof, why did he agree to give them all those millions of dollars?

It's very common with popular wealthy people. It's financially better to just pay people off than fight them. Bill O for instance took a big hit with sponsors of his show because of this most recent allegation. I record everything I watch to avoid commercials. Usually Bill O has about four minutes of commercials between segments. Now it's more like two minutes.

The problem with our legal system is that it's so complicated, so screwed up, that nobody could actually defend themselves in court. For larger orders, you need to hire a team of top-notch lawyers who charge thousands of dollars per hour to work on a case. And to fight a charge like this, they work thousands of hours.

 

[BULLDOG]

O' Reilly is hit and miss. He is intelligent and dissects the opposing positions with skill that strengthens his arguments. It's sometimes his rabid style that doesn't suit me. Of course, this is an aside to any allegations, in that respect he must be held to account.

I respect direct discussion, but he often doesn't allow proper challenging of his arguments, something I see with Tucker as well. It's the format of their shows, condensed time with multiple guests. I prefer a couple of fewer guests with more debate, but whatever. They certainly entertain and present food for thought.

Bill O' is the only political show I watch. I don't agree with him all the time, but watching or listening to people that have your exact same points of view can get boring.

I agree he interrupts his guests way too often. Let them speak left or right.

I hope he fights this newest charge. I get so irritated by rich people just handing money over to make an allegation go away. It only invites more of the same.

I particularly like what Trump said about those money whores that accused him of all sorts of things with no proof. Trump said he was going to sue them, and probably would have if he didn't win the election.

If they accused him with no proof, why did he agree to give them all those millions of dollars?

It's very common with popular wealthy people. It's financially better to just pay people off than fight them. Bill O for instance took a big hit with sponsors of his show because of this most recent allegation. I record everything I watch to avoid commercials. Usually Bill O has about four minutes of commercials between segments. Now it's more like two minutes.

The problem with our legal system is that it's so complicated, so screwed up, that nobody could actually defend themselves in court. For larger orders, you need to hire a team of top-notch lawyers who charge thousands of dollars per hour to work on a case. And to fight a charge like this, they work thousands of hours.

Bullshit. How many lawyers can you hire for 13 million dollars?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

O' Reilly is hit and miss. He is intelligent and dissects the opposing positions with skill that strengthens his arguments. It's sometimes his rabid style that doesn't suit me. Of course, this is an aside to any allegations, in that respect he must be held to account.

I respect direct discussion, but he often doesn't allow proper challenging of his arguments, something I see with Tucker as well. It's the format of their shows, condensed time with multiple guests. I prefer a couple of fewer guests with more debate, but whatever. They certainly entertain and present food for thought.

Bill O' is the only political show I watch. I don't agree with him all the time, but watching or listening to people that have your exact same points of view can get boring.

I agree he interrupts his guests way too often. Let them speak left or right.

I hope he fights this newest charge. I get so irritated by rich people just handing money over to make an allegation go away. It only invites more of the same.

I particularly like what Trump said about those money whores that accused him of all sorts of things with no proof. Trump said he was going to sue them, and probably would have if he didn't win the election.

If they accused him with no proof, why did he agree to give them all those millions of dollars?

It's very common with popular wealthy people. It's financially better to just pay people off than fight them. Bill O for instance took a big hit with sponsors of his show because of this most recent allegation. I record everything I watch to avoid commercials. Usually Bill O has about four minutes of commercials between segments. Now it's more like two minutes.

The problem with our legal system is that it's so complicated, so screwed up, that nobody could actually defend themselves in court. For larger orders, you need to hire a team of top-notch lawyers who charge thousands of dollars per hour to work on a case. And to fight a charge like this, they work thousands of hours.

Bullshit. How many lawyers can you hire for 13 million dollars?

It's more than just the lawyers. As I said, look at the sponsors he lost. Yeah, eventually they will come back or be replaced with new advertisers, but the faster you make the problem go away, the faster that healing process happens.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Blog: The real reason the New York Times has it out for Bill O'Reilly

but the motives of the NY TImes are questionable as well. And the writer is quite correct in pointing out they would look the other way if this were Rachel Maddow or some other left winger.

But it's not some left winger in some alternate reality. It's Bill in actual reality. There is no defense.

 

[longknife]

He's always been too egotistical and pedantic for me. Wonder how long he's going to be on "vacation?"

 

[Theowl32]

The best is watching the clinton voters shout from their moral superiority and their pathetic typical hypocritical platitudes.

That is all I know and the only thing I see here.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The best is watching the clinton voters shout from their moral superiority and their pathetic typical hypocritical platitudes.

That is all I know and the only thing I see here.

They were just fine with voting for a rapist.

 

[edward37]

The best is watching the clinton voters shout from their moral superiority and their pathetic typical hypocritical platitudes.

That is all I know and the only thing I see here.

They were just fine with voting for a rapist.

you have some sort of proof for that obvious bs chic?

 

[pwjohn]

Blog: The real reason the New York Times has it out for Bill O'Reilly

but the motives of the NY TImes are questionable as well. And the writer is quite correct in pointing out they would look the other way if this were Rachel Maddow or some other left winger.

Unlike oreilly, Rachael Maddow is not a serial molester.

 

[edward37]

The best is watching the clinton voters shout from their moral superiority and their pathetic typical hypocritical platitudes.

That is all I know and the only thing I see here.

They were just fine with voting for a rapist.

you have some sort of proof for that obvious bs chic?

and republicans were fine with voting for a degenerate grabber of the pussy

 

[bodecea]

The best is watching the clinton voters shout from their moral superiority and their pathetic typical hypocritical platitudes.

That is all I know and the only thing I see here.

They were just fine with voting for a rapist.

Who?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The best is watching the clinton voters shout from their moral superiority and their pathetic typical hypocritical platitudes.

That is all I know and the only thing I see here.

They were just fine with voting for a rapist.

you have some sort of proof for that obvious bs chic?

A lot more proof than you have of Trump/Putin Collusion.

Watch:

Clinton Misogyny - Sex
Juanita Broaddrick (AR)- rape
Eileen Wellstone (Oxford) - rape
Elizabeth Ward Gracen - rape - quid pro quo, post incident intimidation
Regina Hopper Blakely - "forced himself on her, biting, bruising her"
Kathleen Willey (WH) - sexual assault, intimidations, threats
Sandra Allen James (DC) - sexual assault
22 Year Old 1972 (Yale) - sexual assault
Kathy Bradshaw (AK) - sexual assault
Cristy Zercher - unwelcomed sexual advance, intimidations
Paula Jones (AR) - unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
Carolyn Moffet -unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
1974 student at University of Arkansas - unwelcomed physical contact
1978-1980 - seven complaints per Arkansas state troopers
Monica Lewinsky - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Gennifer Flowers - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Dolly Kyle Browning - post incident character assault
Sally Perdue - post incident threats
Betty Dalton - rebuffed his advances, married to one of his supporters
Denise Reeder - apologetic note scanned
CLINTON'S ROGUES GALLERY:


And...just recently: "Leslie Millwee says that on two of the alleged occasions, Clinton groped her while he rubbed himself against her and reached climax." EXCLUSIVE VIDEO INTERVIEW: New Bill Clinton Sexual Assault Accuser Goes Public for the First Time - Breitbart