Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
you have some sort of proof for that obvious bs chic?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.
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.
and republicans were fine with voting for a degenerate grabber of the pussyyou have some sort of proof for that obvious bs chic?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?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?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.
