Personal attacks on any democrat that pops up in the news.
Not to mention, he insulted the Iraqi people (civilians who we are fighting for) as a whole, and he goes off on a tangent about how much he hates Europeans. He even went so far as to attack the Hurricane Katrina victims.
I've noticed cons tend to question the authenticity of my links. This video has O'Reilly speaking, it doesn't get more authentic than that.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IU9SDYuChsI
Oh yes, Fair and Balanced indeed.
2007-03-02 08:06:40 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
The 1st Amendment does NOT protect words that can incite violence or words that are slanderous. Get informed about our Constitution!
2007-03-02 08:15:20 · update #1
Because Republicans like Bill O'Reilly are so closed minded that when they believe in something and they see proof otherwise, they will just make up a lie just to support their cause.
Most are in denial. *
And the only way they can face the world after supporting Bush is to turn on Fox News every morning.
* It is comparable to the denial of people who still send their kids to Catholic Church even though there is a good chance they will get molested and screwed up for life.
They are in such denial that they still support Bush even though he is and has been doing irreparable damage to our great Country and it's reputation for years.
<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>
2007-03-02 08:13:09 · answer #1 · answered by Dave Yours Truly 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
BILL OREILLY, SEAN HANNITY, RUSH LIMBAUGH, ANNE COULTER, AND EVERYONE ON FOX NEWS ARE NEO-CONSERVATIVE, NOT CONSERVATIVES!
BIG DIFFERENCE!
He does desecrate the first amendment, as well as other amendments every day. he constantly says things like he would throw that man in prison for speaking out against the government, etc, and then he denies saying stuff like that!
He is a Neo-conservative, he is not conservative! real conservatives are libertarians, that is they believe in the constitution and they would never go against it.
Dr. Ron Paul is the only candidate for 2008 that can save us from the neo-conservatives/Illuminati that currently are in charge.
By the way, Micheal Moore is anti-freedom. He believes that we should not have the freedom to bear arms. Guns are what is keeping this country free! If they ever take away that right, and they will one day, we will have no prayer.
PLEASE VOTE RON PAUL in 2008! HE HAS AMERICA'S BEST INTEREST AT HEART, NOT THE NEW WORLD ORDER'S BEST INTEREST!
2007-03-02 08:20:08 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
By now everyone knows that cons are full of sh!t. Those that don't think so either have something to gain by having them in control or are brain dead.
I don't care much for politics in general and I don't care for radical liberalism any more than I do the people that are running this country into the dirt right now. It's a shame we don't have a third party that really honestly represents all people of this country.
As for windbags like O'Reilly and Limbaugh... Pfffft.
2007-03-02 08:24:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. I tell lies to my purchasers every time i bypass to artwork, infront of my colleagues and with the certainty and approval of my boss. in case you disapprove then you fairly tell me the thank you to calm an eighty 4 year old widow who's hysterical approximately getting domicile because of the fact she had a splash one the former day and her husband does not be responsive to the thank you to look after it. My reaction to her is that she is staying with us to get properly, she will no longer be any good to the infant if she is going domicile and collapses and that i've got sent a nurse to help her husband.
2016-09-30 03:00:09 · answer #4 · answered by fogleman 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So having oppions other than your own are hatefull and inspire violence. You sound like the muslims who rioted over Danish cartoons of mohammad. Free speech is not hate speech. Europeans do have an agenda not always compatible with US interests, some Katrina victims have gamed the system and are unworthy of sympathy, Some Iraqi's have not taken the opportunity we have given them for a better life, pointing out outrageous conduct by people who may happen to be democrats is legitimate political discourse. Sieg Hiel you little Nazi
2007-03-02 08:21:28 · answer #5 · answered by espreses@sbcglobal.net 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
When confronted with past remarks that he is unable to defend, FOX News Channel host and radio host Bill O'Reilly appears to have developed a simple strategy: denial. Twice in the last two weeks, callers to O'Reilly's nationally syndicated radio show, The Radio Factor, have taken issue with remarks O'Reilly made earlier in the same broadcast. Rather than apologizing for or defending his remarks, O'Reilly has simply denied making them. And lest the dispute appear to be a case of "He said, she said," O'Reilly has turned to co-host Lis Wiehl to corroborate his false denials.
On the June 28 broadcast of The Radio Factor, in a discussion about the boundaries of legitimate dissent, O'Reilly repeated remarks by author/documentarian Michael Moore that author and New York Times op-ed columnist David Brooks quoted in a June 26 New York Times column. O'Reilly concluded from these remarks that Moore believes the United States to be an "evil country":
O'REILLY: So this is the United States, who has freed the world from communism, freed the world from fascism, from the Axis powers, freed the Pacific from the Japanese -- OK? All of this, but [according to Moore] we bring sadness and misery to places all around the globe. This is Michael Moore. He believes this. He believes that we are an evil country.
But less than 30 minutes later, when a caller disputed O'Reilly's characterization of Moore, O'Reilly denied he ever said Moore believes America is evil, again turning to co-host Wiehl for support:
CALLER: I'm going to see the movie Tuesday night with a friend, and you said earlier in -- in your program that Michael Moore was quoted as saying America's bad and America is evil, and I just wanted to know where (overlapping conversations; inaudible) --
O'REILLY: I didn't say "evil." He says -- he calls America a terrorist state, all right?
[...]
CALLER: But you -- you said more than twice on your show -- and you said, quote -- that he said America was bad and America was evil.
O'REILLY: Correct. I didn't say --
CALLER: And I'm just concerned about -
O'REILLY: -- I don't think I use[d] the word, "evil." Did I use the word, evil, Lis?
WIEHL: I don't think so. You said that we were dumb, and that he said that we were dumb --
O'REILLY: And bad.
WIEHL: -- and bad.
A similar incident occurred during a discussion of former President Bill Clinton and his new memoir, My Life, on the June 17 Radio Factor, during which O'Reilly explained his interest in interviewing Clinton personally and lamented the easy treatment he felt recent interviewers had given to Clinton:
O'REILLY: And [if I had interviewed Clinton] I would have been respectful to the man, by the way. I would not have been disrespectful for him. But, there would have been some real pointed discussions. And I'm interested in Clinton's philosophy of life. That's what I'm interested in. The guy doesn't seem to have any moral foundation at all.
Barely ten minutes later, when a caller took offense to O'Reilly's suggestion that a former president (whom the caller admires) is amoral, O'Reilly simply denied making the claim:
CALLER: Yeah. I just wanted to comment about Bill Clinton. He was our ex-president, and I feel like you're disrespecting him by slandering him like that.
O'REILLY: OK. Let me -- all right. Give me an example of how I slandered him.
CALLER: You said he has no morals.
O'REILLY: Did I say, Lis Wiehl, that he has no morals?
WIEHL: [Caller]? I think he -- Bill was asking what -- "I want to know this man. What are his morals?"
2007-03-02 08:20:44 · answer #6 · answered by Brite Tiger 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm a con. I don't watch the narcissist O'Reilly.
*I watched the clip (well he's annoying so I watched most of it) and didn't see O'Reilly incite violence or slander anyone. He certainly couldn't be prosecuted for what he said.
2007-03-02 08:16:36 · answer #7 · answered by VoodooPunk 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Bill O'Reilly is a pompous jerk. He is a closed minded individual just like the rest at Fox News. He is entitled to his opinion but he needs to get off his high horse and realize that others are also entitled to theirs. His opinion is not always the truth.
2007-03-02 08:16:25 · answer #8 · answered by tigerlily23 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Well Bob, what you'd say is wrong.
2nd Answerer, your name implies you are a para legal!
THAT HAS GOT TO BE A JOKE! You? A para legal and you don't even understand the 1st Amendment at all...
Where did you get your degree? Is it a bootleg degree?
2007-03-02 08:18:50 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Like any real Con, I don't watch O'Reilly.
He's too whiney for me - much like yourself.
2007-03-02 08:12:09 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋