Bill O'Reilly caught in another lie

[TyroneSlothrop]

Yo, you idiots tried Russ Limbaugh, now O`Reilly? Forget about it!!!

"GTP"

Russ ?

Seriously. Who are the idiots? Those who live by their idols.' Rush and O'Reilly, outrageous fabrications, and can't even spell, or those who are grounded in facts and reality?

Yo, if you support the Socialist Progressive Democrat Party, then you are Un-American and a idiot!!!

"GTP"
Photo of the Democrat Idol:

View attachment 37256

Yo You are that guy a Trump groupie a Trumpie

 

[theHawk]

None of the O' Reilly crap is sticking per the mainstream media. Just another sad attempt at deflection. Sad.


Why the Bill O'Reilly charges aren't sticking
politico

By DYLAN BYERS |
2/23/15 12:42 PM EST
Fox News host Bill O'Reilly almost certainly exaggerated his experiences during the Falklands War and its aftermath in 1982, as several CBS News staffers who were with him at the time attest. He wasn't actually in a "war zone" or "combat situation," as he has often said, but instead at a violent protest. No one appears to have been killed during the riot, despite his claim that "many people died." He was certainly not on the Falkland Islands.

So: Why isn't O'Reilly, the highest-rated host on cable news, being subjected to an internal investigation or an unpaid six-month suspension? Some of it is due to his immediate -- and passionate -- dismissal of the charges (a case study in PR). Some of it is due to the fact that, as a partisan pundit rather than a nightly news anchor, the expectations are lower. But most of the blame lays at the feet of Mother Jones.

The journalists who raised the red flags on O'Reilly's statements -- David Corn and Daniel Schulman, of Mother Jones -- started at a disadvantage. These weren't war veterans who felt wronged by O'Reilly's portrayal of events. They were liberal reporters at an admittedly liberal magazine going after the paragon of right-wing punditry. No matter what goods they had on O'Reilly, it would be easy for him to dismiss these detractors as left-wing zealots bent on his destruction (which he did.)

But Corn and Schulman made O'Reilly's job even easier. Their report, titled "Bill O'Reilly Has His Own Brian Williams Problem," promised to deliver conclusive evidence of Choppergate-level sins. Surely, O'Reilly had committed some indesputable fabrication. The promised whopper was in the subhead: "The Fox News host has said he was in a 'war zone' that apparently no American correspondent reached."

Had O'Reilly falsely claimed to have been on the Falkland Islands when he wasn't, the Fox News host might be in serious trouble. But he never really said that. He has said that he was "in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands," which can reasonably be defended as short-hand for "in the Falklands War" -- especially because O'Reilly has oft described his experiences there as taking place in Buenos Aires. "I was not on the Falkland Islands and I never said I was," O'Reilly told the On Media blog last week. That hasn't really been disputed since.

Instead, the debate has shifted to whether or not O'Reilly was actually in "a war zone" or a "combat situation," as he has repeatedly claimed. Well, no, he wasn't. He was present at a violent protest -- or "a riot," or "a demonstration" -- that took place immediately after the conclusion of the war. This is a major embellishment, defensible only under the most forgiving parameters of what constitutes wartime activity. Whatever the case, an embellishment is not going to lead Roger Ailes to fire his most valuable personnel asset. (The network has said that "Fox News Chairman and C.E.O. Roger Ailes and all senior management are in full support of Bill O'Reilly.")

There is one detail in Mother Jones' account that is rather damning: In his book, O'Reilly writes that "many were killed" during the riot. The CBS News report from the riot does not mention any deaths. The former CBS News staffers who spoke with CNN over the weekend likewise claimed that no one died during the riots. "There were certainly no dead people," Jim Forrest, a sound engineer for CBS in Buenos Aires, told CNN's Brian Stelter. "Had there been dead people, they would have sent more camera crews." Manny Alvarez, a cameraman called the claims of deaths "outrageous," and added: "People being mowed down? Where was that? That would have been great footage. That would have turned into the story."

The trouble is, it's probably too late for that to matter. Corn and Schulman picked the wrong battle. They chose to highlight claims that could be argued away on semantics, instead of focusing on matters that could be fact-checked by the absence of reported fatalities. In short, they buried the lead. And because O'Reilly punched holes in the other parts of their argument, it has become all the harder to make the legitimate charges stick.

Nothing 'sad' about it except the RW's desire to pretend this guy is a viable newsman. He's a scumbag, yellow journalist, and liar: is now and always has been. Anyone who takes him seriously is a fool.

He isn't a newsman, he has a show about himself and his own opinions, if you don't like it you don't have to watch. You just hate him because he isn't a pinhead progressive like yourself, and because of that you progs want him silenced, by any means necessary.

Are you going to not vote for Hilary "Sniper Fire" Clinton in the general election?

 

[JimH52]

Yo, you idiots tried Russ Limbaugh, now O`Reilly? Forget about it!!!

"GTP"

Russ ?

Seriously. Who are the idiots? Those who live by their idols.' Rush and O'Reilly, outrageous fabrications, and can't even spell, or those who are grounded in facts and reality?

Yo, if you support the Socialist Progressive Democrat Party, then you are Un-American and a idiot!!!

"GTP"
Photo of the Democrat Idol:

View attachment 37256

Poor Photoshop work.

 

[Camp]

None of the O' Reilly crap is sticking per the mainstream media. Just another sad attempt at deflection. Sad.


Why the Bill O'Reilly charges aren't sticking
politico

By DYLAN BYERS |
2/23/15 12:42 PM EST
Fox News host Bill O'Reilly almost certainly exaggerated his experiences during the Falklands War and its aftermath in 1982, as several CBS News staffers who were with him at the time attest. He wasn't actually in a "war zone" or "combat situation," as he has often said, but instead at a violent protest. No one appears to have been killed during the riot, despite his claim that "many people died." He was certainly not on the Falkland Islands.

So: Why isn't O'Reilly, the highest-rated host on cable news, being subjected to an internal investigation or an unpaid six-month suspension? Some of it is due to his immediate -- and passionate -- dismissal of the charges (a case study in PR). Some of it is due to the fact that, as a partisan pundit rather than a nightly news anchor, the expectations are lower. But most of the blame lays at the feet of Mother Jones.

The journalists who raised the red flags on O'Reilly's statements -- David Corn and Daniel Schulman, of Mother Jones -- started at a disadvantage. These weren't war veterans who felt wronged by O'Reilly's portrayal of events. They were liberal reporters at an admittedly liberal magazine going after the paragon of right-wing punditry. No matter what goods they had on O'Reilly, it would be easy for him to dismiss these detractors as left-wing zealots bent on his destruction (which he did.)

But Corn and Schulman made O'Reilly's job even easier. Their report, titled "Bill O'Reilly Has His Own Brian Williams Problem," promised to deliver conclusive evidence of Choppergate-level sins. Surely, O'Reilly had committed some indesputable fabrication. The promised whopper was in the subhead: "The Fox News host has said he was in a 'war zone' that apparently no American correspondent reached."

Had O'Reilly falsely claimed to have been on the Falkland Islands when he wasn't, the Fox News host might be in serious trouble. But he never really said that. He has said that he was "in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands," which can reasonably be defended as short-hand for "in the Falklands War" -- especially because O'Reilly has oft described his experiences there as taking place in Buenos Aires. "I was not on the Falkland Islands and I never said I was," O'Reilly told the On Media blog last week. That hasn't really been disputed since.

Instead, the debate has shifted to whether or not O'Reilly was actually in "a war zone" or a "combat situation," as he has repeatedly claimed. Well, no, he wasn't. He was present at a violent protest -- or "a riot," or "a demonstration" -- that took place immediately after the conclusion of the war. This is a major embellishment, defensible only under the most forgiving parameters of what constitutes wartime activity. Whatever the case, an embellishment is not going to lead Roger Ailes to fire his most valuable personnel asset. (The network has said that "Fox News Chairman and C.E.O. Roger Ailes and all senior management are in full support of Bill O'Reilly.")

There is one detail in Mother Jones' account that is rather damning: In his book, O'Reilly writes that "many were killed" during the riot. The CBS News report from the riot does not mention any deaths. The former CBS News staffers who spoke with CNN over the weekend likewise claimed that no one died during the riots. "There were certainly no dead people," Jim Forrest, a sound engineer for CBS in Buenos Aires, told CNN's Brian Stelter. "Had there been dead people, they would have sent more camera crews." Manny Alvarez, a cameraman called the claims of deaths "outrageous," and added: "People being mowed down? Where was that? That would have been great footage. That would have turned into the story."

The trouble is, it's probably too late for that to matter. Corn and Schulman picked the wrong battle. They chose to highlight claims that could be argued away on semantics, instead of focusing on matters that could be fact-checked by the absence of reported fatalities. In short, they buried the lead. And because O'Reilly punched holes in the other parts of their argument, it has become all the harder to make the legitimate charges stick.

Nothing 'sad' about it except the RW's desire to pretend this guy is a viable newsman. He's a scumbag, yellow journalist, and liar: is now and always has been. Anyone who takes him seriously is a fool.

He isn't a newsman, he has a show about himself and his own opinions, if you don't like it you don't have to watch. You just hate him because he isn't a pinhead progressive like yourself, and because of that you progs want him silenced, by any means necessary.

Are you going to not vote for Hilary "Sniper Fire" Clinton in the general election?

It is taking some of you a long time to figure out the story isn't really about O Reilly. It's about FOX News and the Republican propaganda machine that shovels all that crap out to the impressionable and easy to influence robots. Bill is just a conduit for disinformation. He is the symbol. The O Reilly the liar stories are just reinforcing the FOX News brand as being fake news. Even the defenders are arguing that because Bill is an entertainer Fox is allowed to be dishonest. That is basically what you are saying in your post. His dimwitted fans are defending him for being a liar by claiming he is allowed to lie.

 

[theHawk]

None of the O' Reilly crap is sticking per the mainstream media. Just another sad attempt at deflection. Sad.


Why the Bill O'Reilly charges aren't sticking
politico

By DYLAN BYERS |
2/23/15 12:42 PM EST
Fox News host Bill O'Reilly almost certainly exaggerated his experiences during the Falklands War and its aftermath in 1982, as several CBS News staffers who were with him at the time attest. He wasn't actually in a "war zone" or "combat situation," as he has often said, but instead at a violent protest. No one appears to have been killed during the riot, despite his claim that "many people died." He was certainly not on the Falkland Islands.

So: Why isn't O'Reilly, the highest-rated host on cable news, being subjected to an internal investigation or an unpaid six-month suspension? Some of it is due to his immediate -- and passionate -- dismissal of the charges (a case study in PR). Some of it is due to the fact that, as a partisan pundit rather than a nightly news anchor, the expectations are lower. But most of the blame lays at the feet of Mother Jones.

The journalists who raised the red flags on O'Reilly's statements -- David Corn and Daniel Schulman, of Mother Jones -- started at a disadvantage. These weren't war veterans who felt wronged by O'Reilly's portrayal of events. They were liberal reporters at an admittedly liberal magazine going after the paragon of right-wing punditry. No matter what goods they had on O'Reilly, it would be easy for him to dismiss these detractors as left-wing zealots bent on his destruction (which he did.)

But Corn and Schulman made O'Reilly's job even easier. Their report, titled "Bill O'Reilly Has His Own Brian Williams Problem," promised to deliver conclusive evidence of Choppergate-level sins. Surely, O'Reilly had committed some indesputable fabrication. The promised whopper was in the subhead: "The Fox News host has said he was in a 'war zone' that apparently no American correspondent reached."

Had O'Reilly falsely claimed to have been on the Falkland Islands when he wasn't, the Fox News host might be in serious trouble. But he never really said that. He has said that he was "in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands," which can reasonably be defended as short-hand for "in the Falklands War" -- especially because O'Reilly has oft described his experiences there as taking place in Buenos Aires. "I was not on the Falkland Islands and I never said I was," O'Reilly told the On Media blog last week. That hasn't really been disputed since.

Instead, the debate has shifted to whether or not O'Reilly was actually in "a war zone" or a "combat situation," as he has repeatedly claimed. Well, no, he wasn't. He was present at a violent protest -- or "a riot," or "a demonstration" -- that took place immediately after the conclusion of the war. This is a major embellishment, defensible only under the most forgiving parameters of what constitutes wartime activity. Whatever the case, an embellishment is not going to lead Roger Ailes to fire his most valuable personnel asset. (The network has said that "Fox News Chairman and C.E.O. Roger Ailes and all senior management are in full support of Bill O'Reilly.")

There is one detail in Mother Jones' account that is rather damning: In his book, O'Reilly writes that "many were killed" during the riot. The CBS News report from the riot does not mention any deaths. The former CBS News staffers who spoke with CNN over the weekend likewise claimed that no one died during the riots. "There were certainly no dead people," Jim Forrest, a sound engineer for CBS in Buenos Aires, told CNN's Brian Stelter. "Had there been dead people, they would have sent more camera crews." Manny Alvarez, a cameraman called the claims of deaths "outrageous," and added: "People being mowed down? Where was that? That would have been great footage. That would have turned into the story."

The trouble is, it's probably too late for that to matter. Corn and Schulman picked the wrong battle. They chose to highlight claims that could be argued away on semantics, instead of focusing on matters that could be fact-checked by the absence of reported fatalities. In short, they buried the lead. And because O'Reilly punched holes in the other parts of their argument, it has become all the harder to make the legitimate charges stick.

Nothing 'sad' about it except the RW's desire to pretend this guy is a viable newsman. He's a scumbag, yellow journalist, and liar: is now and always has been. Anyone who takes him seriously is a fool.

He isn't a newsman, he has a show about himself and his own opinions, if you don't like it you don't have to watch. You just hate him because he isn't a pinhead progressive like yourself, and because of that you progs want him silenced, by any means necessary.

Are you going to not vote for Hilary "Sniper Fire" Clinton in the general election?

It is taking some of you a long time to figure out the story isn't really about O Reilly. It's about FOX News and the Republican propaganda machine that shovels all that crap out to the impressionable and easy to influence robots. Bill is just a conduit for disinformation. He is the symbol. The O Reilly the liar stories are just reinforcing the FOX News brand as being fake news. Even the defenders are arguing that because Bill is an entertainer Fox is allowed to be dishonest. That is basically what you are saying in your post. His dimwitted fans are defending him for being a liar by claiming he is allowed to lie.

Progressives have been after him, and every other non-lefty, for years.
They just can't stand a successful centrist or right-winger.

I am not saying he is a liar, there still hasn't been any proof of that. I just find it hilarious that libs get so bent out of shape by an alleged liar, when they don't have a problem with the left wingnut liars.

 

[WelfareQueen]

All that proves is that you are just another teeny weenie brained racist asshole.

So is everyone who disagrees with you. Get a new line. No one gives a shit.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

 

[cnm]

[...]
I am not saying he is a liar, there still hasn't been any proof of that. [...]

Only eye witnesses.

 

[blackhawk]

You do realize outside of the looniest of the loons the rest of the country has moved on don't you?

 

[cnm]

Oh yes, they've agreed to pretend to believe Billo while he pretends to tell the truth. An admirable solution.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[Mertex]

Clown-faces, indeed...

Yip-yip poodles and ankle-biters...

'I'm not going to defend O'lielly's lies but I'm defending O'lielly's lies.'

Hardly. I'm merely (1) poking fun at the copycat Lefties trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, and (2) putting things into perspective.

Really you are just another slack jawed unhinged mouth-breather garden variety wing nut....

Calm yourself, junior, or you'll soil your undies...

Ha,ha, is that what happens to you?

 

[Mertex]

I'm gonna have to watch a broadcast or two by this O'Reilly critter, sometime soon...

Given the length that the Lefties are going to, to try and 'assassinate' him in retaliation for the Brian Williams butt-whupping...

Given the length that righties went to assassinate Williams, who wasn't forced to admit that he had lied but did it, and who was punished for his lying, here you are trying to make it seem that O'Reilly, who is still denying that he ever lied, even with the facts being printed and video-taped, and Faux News defending him instead of holding him responsible, is some hero, and you are appearing to be just another brain-washed right-winger who will defend lies and the support of lies.....Whoopee.....nothing new, though.

The guy must be doing something right...

Yep....he's doing something right, he's got you brainwashed defending his poop.

If he's got 'em worked up into this kind of uncontrolled orgasmic spraying over nickel-and-dime penny-ante shit like this...

Seems to me you're the one all worked up trying to prove to us how great your lying hero is.

The guy can't be all bad...

Not for brainwashed people, he ain't.

Clowns, yip-yip poodles and ankle-biters...

Hey, the clowns are your candidates.....you shouldn't be making fun of them....oops, I forgot....brainwashed, lying hero droolers and KoolAid drinkers can't help themselves.....

Get a frigging grip, people...

In other words, quit exposing our hero..........

 

[Mertex]

Here it is..

David Corn Hangs Up On Hugh Hewitt After 45-Minute Grilling on Bill O Reilly Video RealClearPolitics

Yes, I read the entire transcript and nothing in it showed O'Reilly told anything but a lie. He has told multiple lies. But you RW nuts will defend him along with FOX. :I am trying to keep track of your heros....

Putin
Cosby
now Bill O'Reilly

It is building into an impressive list!

This is how stupid you are. The interview was not about O'Reilly. I twas about Corns credibility. You sure don't comprehend much of the world around you, do you?

Yep, the interview was a sham......and Corn wasn't stupid to hang around, so it wasn't Corn who came out looking like an ass.

 

[Mertex]

It does not strike anyone as suspicous that only a few weeks after Brian Williams admitted to lying (no, he did not make a mistake nor did he admit to making a mistake, he lied) that suddenly......just suddenly, there are a bunch of people who can swear that they remember something different than a moderately right opinion writer said was a lie.......decades after the incident?

Just lucky I guess, huh libs?

This biggest problem the leftists have is that David Corn and Mother Jones flat out lied. They wanted to "get" O'Reilly and ran a fabricated piece to do it - which blew up in their face.

Demagogue George Soros mobilized his termites to chitter memes of Texas Suicide and other idiocy. The left failed with the first slander, so time to move the goal posts - as many times as needed to find something that will stick.

It's so transparent that the country yawned.

Now the brainless little fools are coming unglued.

Well, I hear that Corn was on an talk radio show and was getting cross examined hard enough that he not only could not answer the questions, but flat out hung up in mid question.....I don't recall where I read that...I'd have to look but I'm sure google will have it.

Bwhahaha....did you even listen to the interview? The dude was asking question that had nothing to do with O'Reilly.........he was using what "conservatives" call and accuse the Liberal media of using, "gotcha questions"......only Corn is too smart to fall for that crap.........asking him how much he earned at Faux....asking him if he was fired....what a crock of poop.....now you're trying to imply that Corn hung up because he was outsmarted.......you're doing the same thing that O'Reilly tries to do, to imply something that is not there.

Nice try.

Not to quick on the uptake, are you? The interview goes directly to Corn's credibility.

In other words, the entire O'Reilly smear campaign is based upon the untrustworthy word of a leftist who needs to cover up foro Brian "I signed the SALTII treaty" Williams.

Yeah, sure.....Corn made up the video tapes and dubbed in O'Reilly's lies.....bwahahahaha, you are a dimwit.

 

[Mertex]

Okay honey....how is he different than anyone on MSNBC???


Thanks for playing.

So, why aren't you posting the lies by anyone on MSNBC?

 

[Mertex]

None of the O' Reilly crap is sticking per the mainstream media. Just another sad attempt at deflection. Sad.


Why the Bill O'Reilly charges aren't sticking
politico

By DYLAN BYERS |
2/23/15 12:42 PM EST
Fox News host Bill O'Reilly almost certainly exaggerated his experiences during the Falklands War and its aftermath in 1982, as several CBS News staffers who were with him at the time attest. He wasn't actually in a "war zone" or "combat situation," as he has often said, but instead at a violent protest. No one appears to have been killed during the riot, despite his claim that "many people died." He was certainly not on the Falkland Islands.

So: Why isn't O'Reilly, the highest-rated host on cable news, being subjected to an internal investigation or an unpaid six-month suspension? Some of it is due to his immediate -- and passionate -- dismissal of the charges (a case study in PR). Some of it is due to the fact that, as a partisan pundit rather than a nightly news anchor, the expectations are lower. But most of the blame lays at the feet of Mother Jones.

The journalists who raised the red flags on O'Reilly's statements -- David Corn and Daniel Schulman, of Mother Jones -- started at a disadvantage. These weren't war veterans who felt wronged by O'Reilly's portrayal of events. They were liberal reporters at an admittedly liberal magazine going after the paragon of right-wing punditry. No matter what goods they had on O'Reilly, it would be easy for him to dismiss these detractors as left-wing zealots bent on his destruction (which he did.)

But Corn and Schulman made O'Reilly's job even easier. Their report, titled "Bill O'Reilly Has His Own Brian Williams Problem," promised to deliver conclusive evidence of Choppergate-level sins. Surely, O'Reilly had committed some indesputable fabrication. The promised whopper was in the subhead: "The Fox News host has said he was in a 'war zone' that apparently no American correspondent reached."

Had O'Reilly falsely claimed to have been on the Falkland Islands when he wasn't, the Fox News host might be in serious trouble. But he never really said that. He has said that he was "in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands," which can reasonably be defended as short-hand for "in the Falklands War" -- especially because O'Reilly has oft described his experiences there as taking place in Buenos Aires. "I was not on the Falkland Islands and I never said I was," O'Reilly told the On Media blog last week. That hasn't really been disputed since.

Instead, the debate has shifted to whether or not O'Reilly was actually in "a war zone" or a "combat situation," as he has repeatedly claimed. Well, no, he wasn't. He was present at a violent protest -- or "a riot," or "a demonstration" -- that took place immediately after the conclusion of the war. This is a major embellishment, defensible only under the most forgiving parameters of what constitutes wartime activity. Whatever the case, an embellishment is not going to lead Roger Ailes to fire his most valuable personnel asset. (The network has said that "Fox News Chairman and C.E.O. Roger Ailes and all senior management are in full support of Bill O'Reilly.")

There is one detail in Mother Jones' account that is rather damning: In his book, O'Reilly writes that "many were killed" during the riot. The CBS News report from the riot does not mention any deaths. The former CBS News staffers who spoke with CNN over the weekend likewise claimed that no one died during the riots. "There were certainly no dead people," Jim Forrest, a sound engineer for CBS in Buenos Aires, told CNN's Brian Stelter. "Had there been dead people, they would have sent more camera crews." Manny Alvarez, a cameraman called the claims of deaths "outrageous," and added: "People being mowed down? Where was that? That would have been great footage. That would have turned into the story."

The trouble is, it's probably too late for that to matter. Corn and Schulman picked the wrong battle. They chose to highlight claims that could be argued away on semantics, instead of focusing on matters that could be fact-checked by the absence of reported fatalities. In short, they buried the lead. And because O'Reilly punched holes in the other parts of their argument, it has become all the harder to make the legitimate charges stick.

Nothing 'sad' about it except the RW's desire to pretend this guy is a viable newsman. He's a scumbag, yellow journalist, and liar: is now and always has been. Anyone who takes him seriously is a fool.

Okay honey....how is he different than anyone on MSNBC???

Thanks for playing.

Okay, HONEY (you're a bag full of shit too): First of all, that's not a response, that's a deflection. And I can't answer regarding MSNBC, I don't get it. I live overseas. But I do get Fox and, as well, I know O'Reilly from back in the days when he was anchor of Inside Edition. I know what a bag full of BS he is.

Thanks for playing, asshole.

But, notice, there is no posts showing articlels/videos of anyone lying on MSNBC......making themselves a hero, and viewers defending that "anyone"......

 

[Kondor3]

I'm gonna have to watch a broadcast or two by this O'Reilly critter, sometime soon...

Given the length that the Lefties are going to, to try and 'assassinate' him in retaliation for the Brian Williams butt-whupping...

Given the length that righties went to assassinate Williams, who wasn't forced to admit that he had lied but did it, and who was punished for his lying, here you are trying to make it seem that O'Reilly, who is still denying that he ever lied, even with the facts being printed and video-taped, and Faux News defending him instead of holding him responsible, is some hero, and you are appearing to be just another brain-washed right-winger who will defend lies and the support of lies.....Whoopee.....nothing new, though.

The guy must be doing something right...

Yep....he's doing something right, he's got you brainwashed defending his poop. ...

Got me brainwashed? Good trick, considering I barely even know who he is, and have listened to him - maybe - 20 minutes, in toto, over the past 5 years or more. Yeah... right.

...

If he's got 'em worked up into this kind of uncontrolled orgasmic spraying over nickel-and-dime penny-ante shit like this...

...Seems to me you're the one all worked up trying to prove to us how great your lying hero is...

Nope.

I've said it here time and again... I don't give a rat's ass about O'Reilly... and I don't even know if he's telling the truth or lying... and given that I never listen to him, it would be a little difficult to pitch him as my 'hero'... but we won't let your odd misinterpretation of Reality disturb your pretended knowledge of my (or many other folks') motives.

As to 'worked-up'... nahhhhh... just having a field day, watching the Looney Left having multiple orgasms, over the pointless, witless O'Reilly copycat assaults.

The guy can't be all bad...

Not for brainwashed people, he ain't.

Again... one cannot be 'brainwashed' by a person if one does not listen to that person.

...

Clowns, yip-yip poodles and ankle-biters...

Hey, the clowns are your candidates.....you shouldn't be making fun of them....oops, I forgot....brainwashed, lying hero droolers and KoolAid drinkers can't help themselves.....

Clowns, yip-yip poodles, and ankle-biters.

Get a frigging grip, people...

In other words, quit exposing our hero..........

Whose hero is he, again?

I don't know him from Adam, and don't really give a rat's ass about him, or whether he's telling the truth or lying.

I'm merely here to point-out how embarrassingly ridiculous the Looney Left is making itself look over this dumbass, lame-ass, low-yield copycat assassination attempt.

Oh, that, and, to make the argument for Molehills (O'Reilly) vs. Mountains (Williams, Stolen Valor).

 

[cnm]

I don't know him from Adam, and don't really give a rat's ass about him, or whether he's telling the truth or lying.

If that is the case, it is you making yourself ridiculous defending a blowhard's right to lie.

 

[Kondor3]

I don't know him from Adam, and don't really give a rat's ass about him, or whether he's telling the truth or lying.

If that is the case, it is you making yourself ridiculous defending a blowhard's right to lie.

I expect no less from someone with a vested interest in perpetuating this boring copycat attack.

And, yes, it is true, that I don't know O'Reilly from Adam, nor do I give a rat's ass about him, nor do I know nor care whether he's lying or telling the truth.

I'm just here to point out the ridiculous nature of the Left's copycat drive-by shooting here...