O'Reilly's statement after he settled the Andrea Mackris case
By John Amato Tuesday Jul 31, 2007 4:30pm
The reason I'm revisiting the Mackris story is to show the hypocrisy of O'Reilly in all its glory. The worst that he could find on Kos was a lame graphic to smear him with...He's a bully---plain and simple...
I heard Andrea got over 6 million dollars from FOX. She did plunk down 809,500 bucks for a condo three weeks after the settlement so you know she had to have tapes of his harassing her...
Download | play 
Download | play
O'Reilly: I have something very important to tell you. All litigation has ceased that has made me the object of media scorn from coast to coast. On a personal note, this matter has caused enormous pain, but I had to protect my family and I did....This brutal ordeal is now over and I will never speak of it again...
BillO sexually harasses, threatens and then goes public to scare her---and he tries to play the victim. This little speech was really as lame as it gets for Bill...He'll never talk about because of the obvious fact that he's....G-U-I-L-T-Y...
Digby goes into "Bill's "Murder Mystery...."
And as Digby picked up on, since he said that he'll never talk about the case again, what can he say about his confrontation with Mike Stark? How can he even bring it up on his show? Will he so easily break his vow of silence? Inquiring minds want to know...
The General has erected a tomb to the unknown legal settlement in Billo's honor.
Login or Register to post comments.
The right has been conspicuoulsy quiet about this whole Mike Stark thing. Too quiet. And now I can't get into Kos at all. Anyone else having problems getting to Kos?
Frist?
DJShay @ 1:
maybe they all left to go to YearlyKos?
Guiltly? Yeah, he's guiltly as hell.
So they turned out the lights?
You didn't spell "GUILTY" right. Sigh...
Take your time when you post, spell check is your friend!
Overlooked in the salacious details of O'Reilly's tawdry talk to his subordinate is the years of practice he got earlier - as a novelist. In his 1998 novel, Those Who Trespass, Bill O'Reilly showed he could write - as well as talk - trash.
For the details, see:
"Life Imitates Art for Novelist Bill O'Reilly."
NewNameAcquired @ 6:
Spell Check? We don't need no stinking spell check!
Ha! O'really will take a page out of the Gonzalez playbook: "I don't recall having to payoff someone for several million dollars:
"and I will never speak of it again...."
Why does this remind me of Great Aunt Ada Doom at Cold Comfort Farm?
"I saw something nasty in the woodshed"
This preoccupation with O'Reilly is getting boring. O'Reilly is a nobody bigmouth. If anything, this preoccupation with O'Reilly is distracting from the important stuff -- like our Democrat Congress failing to defund the War in Iraq (which they can do simply by not passing a war budget and there would be nothing to veto).
And now, today Barak Obama advocates USA invading Iraq, coupled with Hillary's criticism of Obama for advocating mere communication with Iran.
First our Democrat Congress failed us. Now our Democrat Presidential candidates are failing us.
[This is the same point you made over and over and over yesterday. We get it. Do you? -- Sitemonitor]
How come this d*ick head loser is allowed to dictate the topic. How come he continues to harp on any and every topic against the Left?
Well, we all know the answer....he's a cowardly propagandist punk.
I need to correct, Obama advcated invading Pakistan, not Iraq. Sorry for the error.
[Noted. Now, would you kindly return to the topic?]
When do we all get together and go after Murdock?
This will never end until we get legislation back on the books that prohibit the kind of quackery that Bill O and others practice, not to mention the kind of monopoly Murdock employs to prey upon us through the public airwaves.
Use of "Democrat" as an adjective in lieu of the correct "Democratic": sure sign of a troll.
O'Reilly: All I can say to you is please do not believe everything you hear and read.
...because you might just hear the truth.
[Deleted. Off topic concern trolling]
Grant @ 13:
LoL, and it's only OK to ask republicans: "Where is Osama?"
[Deleted. Off topic]
Obviously, he will bring up Mike Stark's visit in a totally different context. He'll play the victim card and mention the signs put up around the neighborhood, and say something to the effect of "They are so vile, I'm not even going to show them to you." He'll make himself look like "the target of vile hate" without ever mentioning the Mackris case.
When he implores us to not believe everything we hear or see, I take that to mean that we shouldn't believe what he says. Right?
He's the Court Jester of our times, that's all I think of when I see or hear him.
OK, OK, you guys win. O'Reilly is a hypocritcal idiot and deserves to be discussed on this thread as a serious topic.
[No one is forcing you to stay. You want to choose the topics? Then start your own blog.]
SandraD @ 21:
If Bill-O is the Court Jester, what does that make his myopic audience?
Dr. Matt @ 23:
Senile monarchs with delusions of grandeur.
By the way, I forgot:
"Don't you tell me when it's over! I'll tell YOU when it's over." -Keith Olbermann
Funny how those tapes never turned up in public.
Tapes always turn up.
Maybe we should raise 2 million for her and let the public hear his stupid, no-game, Cinemax-borrowed, loser rap.
Agent W-Zero-W @ 24:
I was thinking more along the lines of serfs.
Grant @ 11:
Try another thread Ned.
Oreally has a falafal in his pants!
SEXUAL PREDATOR!
O'Reilly is a falafal. hahahahaha
abarts @ 30:
Naw, just a dirty old man.
Agent Zero is right: BillO will cherry pick his facts to paint Stark as a far left loon and stalker. What Stark did was wrong not just morally (his justification boils down to "They do it, so that gives me the right to do it, too" -- uh, wrong, Mike; "they" also advocate torture), it was also wrong tactically. He's just handed BillO a club to beat progressives with. Nice going, Mike!
[We're not sure which is worse, concern trolling or temper tantrums. Care to contribute to the conversation? If not, then take a hike. We can assist you in the latter endeavor, if need be.]
Grant @ 31:
Dude, I have an old Teletubbie Doll that was my daughter's around here somewhere. It says three things, "Uh-oh, La-La," and "Bye-Bye."
Compared to you, the doll is a riveting speaker.
But thank you for your concern.
NewNameAcquired @ 6:
Who cares whether he misspelled it? it's a fucking blog post. Move along.
See, this is what I mean about what Stark did being a good thing. Puts him and Fox in a very precarious position. Why do you think O'Reilly didn't call the cops on the guy? Just to be nice? Or perhaps trying to keep a low profile on a hugely embarrassing issue?
Fox is stuck. Hah!
Grant @ 31:
He's not a falafel (note spelling). He uses falafel (as he calls it; educated people call it a loofah) to sexually harass his subordinates.
i think stark did the right thing imho. somebody needs to hit this guy where it hurts. at the very least he should have been tarred and feathered for the Jeremy Glick on air assault.
Grant, as I am sure that Sitemon is about to show you the egress, let me be the first to wish you Happy Trails!
Shouldn't this filthy old rat have to register as a sex offender and predator in every state and territory?
I think part of the settlement must be that Mackris cannot reveal how she got O'Reilly's comments word for word (taping the phone calls, of course) b/c then she would have to get into privacy issues and a possible countersuit (although he may have filed a countersuit, not sure on that). Anyway, she's got the tapes but we've got the transcripts. Wish some Dem milquetoast (somebody he'd never suspect) would get on his show and suddenly start reading the really creepy parts of the transcript, as much as they can get in, before he cuts their mike.
Vitter said his wife and his god forgave him so that's the end of it. O'Reilly says the case is over and that the end of it.
But it's not over until we say it is!
"I will NEVER speak of it again......Although I may make some phone calls to young women in my employ..."
Creep. The man is a skanky ole creep. Who would sleep with him for free? Mackris must have excellent control over her gag reflex to sit through those phone calls.
Bill O’Reilly takes aim at San Francisco: Fox host reportedly said it was OK for terrorists to target the city
MSNBC; Updated: 1:08 a.m. ET Nov 17, 2005
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10004302/
Does Bill O’Reilly have it in for the city by the bay?
San Franciscans have been in an uproar this week over apparent comments by the host of Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor” that it was A-OK for terrorists to wipe the city off the map. At issue are comments from O’Reilly’s Election Day broadcast on his syndicated Westwood One radio show about a San Francisco ballot measure opposing the presence of military recruiters in city schools.
“Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you’re not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead,” O’Reilly said, according to a transcript and audio posted by liberal media watchdog group Media Matters for America, and by the San Francisco Chronicle.
“And if al-Qaida comes in here and blows you up, we’re not going to do anything about it. We’re going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead,” O’Reilly continued, referring to the 1933 San Francisco landmark that sits atop Telegraph Hill.
Adding to the buzz was the archived version of O’Reilly’s Tuesday show, which omitted the incendiary comments, according to Bay Area TV station KNTV. City officials were not amused. “It sounds like he’s on the same medication Rush Limbaugh is addicted to, and he should go see a therapist,” Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin, whose district includes the tower, told the Chronicle. Neither O’Reilly nor Fox News have yet commented on the dust-up.
Tower of Babble
Bill O’Reilly wants terrorists to bomb Coit Tower because we’re a bunch of sissies. Whose side are you on?
By Matt Palmquist; SF Weekly
Published: November 23, 2005
http://www.sfweekly.com/2005-1.....of-babble/
On his radio show last Monday, infamous conservative commentator Bill O’Reilly lambasted San Francisco for voting against military recruitment in its schools, and welcomed terrorists to annihilate one of the city’s most beloved landmarks, Coit Tower, a monument to firefighters. Said O’Reilly: “You know, if I’m the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium, and I say, ‘Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you’re not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead. And if al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we’re not going to do anything about it. We’re going to say, “Look, every other place in America is off limits to you except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.”‘” His comments set off a firestorm, but he has refused to back down, defending the tirade as “satirical.” Are you an apologist for Bill O’Reilly? Take our quiz and find out!
Bill O'Reilly is a very grandiose person to start with. How about the families who live in San Francisco? How about the firemen who put the fires out in the earthquakes for which the Coit Tower was named and built after? Its relevant because O'Reilly went on the air, half-cocked, and chose the Coit Tower because he attirbuted the shape of the Coit Tower with a phallic symbol and of course associated and targeted that with San Francisco, because of its "gay populace." Yes, this is how deranged people like O'Reilly are. These people wish harm and violence on others when making their sanctimonious points to baseless arguments. I am still pissed that the government and the FCC who cared so much about Janet Jackson's boob you never really saw but were told you did, allow for this repugnant O'Reilly to escape justice and oversight on his calls for San Francisco to be targeted by al-Qaeda. Of course, Ann Coulter wished Timothy McVeigh had also blown up the NY Times building as well. These people are deranged and I am not making ad hominem attacks. Go stand in the middle of a mall and make the comments that Coulter made regarding the NY Times building or what O'Reilly said about the Coit Tower in San Francisco and see how long before the white coats show up to bring you to the nearest insane asylum.
Again, Bill O’Reilly’s wish for violence on an American city (San Francisco) in my opinion ought to be prosecuted under the Federal RICO laws as well as provisions in the Patriot Act which specifies O’Reilly’s calls for Al-Qaeda to bomb San Francisco as “terrorism.” Lynn Stewart was prosecuted and found guilty of charges less substantial than O’Reilly asking for the presumed terrorists of 9-11-2001 to do the same act in San Francisco. O’Reilly’s calls for terrorists to bomb San Francisco will never leave me as long as O’Reilly has not owned up to these awful desires upon his fellow Americans. Well, in my opinion after looking at these articles and what O'Reilly said, he should be on trial for "terrorism" according to the Patriot Act which he so violated. I think Americans should still be more outraged to this day that he said such violent and inhumane things one could ever say about their fellows, other than the act itself. No sane person would say such things and does America want this insanity broadcast over its public airwaves. I was aghast when he said this and nothing was done by the FCC to this day. Something should be done to O'Reilly for his threatening and violent speech against San Francisco in 2005. It is unacceptable social behavior. To this day, one Mr. Bill O’Reilly should have faced a criminal indictment based on asking terrorists to bomb an American city.
I cannot believe there was not more outrage to this day over O’Reilly’s violent threats towards San Francisco. O’Reilly’s advertisers must be asked if they approve of a man who requests al-Qaeda to bomb America at all, let alone San Francisco. O’Reilly’s tirade no matter what spin he puts on it is inexcusable of a man allowed to say such things on public airwaves on the radio. Does O’Reilly know that Bechtel Corporation is located in San Francisco and its a huge area of the military-industrial complex? O’Reilly is a thug and not too intelligent.
Publicly using the public airwaves to make threats which O’Reilly does over and over again should not be tolerated in American society. It is time to call O’Reilly on his death threats to both the people of San Francisco and the firemen in that fine city, and Americans at-large. O’Reilly’s calls for al-Qaeda to bomb San Francisco are crimes according to the language of the Patriot Act. Although I oppose the Patriot Act, Bill O’Reilly supports it, so he should be prosecuted under it for which he has violated. O'Reilly should at least be given a trial for giving aid and comfort to al-Qaeda. At least on that day, O'Reilly was inciting al-Qaeda to attack the United States and I do not care whether he "likes or dislikes" San Francisco. The fact of the matter is that O'Reilly was inciting terrorists to attack an American city. To date, O'Reilly has never retracted or made amends regarding those criminal and sociopathic-like remarks in hoping that al-Qaeda would bomb San Francisco's Coit Tower.
blogenfreude @ 43:
Are you a wingnut then? Because they will always have a home in wingnuttia.
Someday, historians may refer to this period as the "Cognitive Dissonance Era," because of the way the right wing is so blind to the corruption and hypocrisy of it's leaders.
Even when their leaders are exposed, the wingnuts blame "the librul media" or "the Democrat party."
On the other hand, even when proven innocent, Democrats and liberals are still guilty. Stephen Colbert recently showed Hannity running a segment
accusinginsinuating that the Clintons murdered Vince Foster.I work on a military installation. I can't get into Kos but I sure can get onto oreilly.com.
I believe "Grant" is another in a long line of agents provacateur, possibly of the mercenary kind..."he" has the same posting style as a number of other 'single name' posters, and always pushes the same topic. Having seen "his" like around C&L the past couple of weeks, methinks there is a concerted effort here, but I can't for the life of me figure out what the goal is.
myiq2xu @ 47:
A floundering economy, a failing war, massive reich-wing corruption, record high gas prices, miserable record low poll numbers for herr dubyah....and Hannity obsesses over gossip about something that happened 14 years ago. Jebus, reich-wingers are pathetic.
Mr. XXXX @ 46:
This may shock you, but Coit Tower is built to resemble the nozzle of a fire hose and has always been speculated to be a phalllic symbol.
There is reason to believe that Old Mrs. Coit, the widow who paid to have the tower built, was not thanking the SFFD for fighting fires.
And all this was long before "gay" meant anything other than "happy."
..and I will never speak of it again.. though I will act it in private with the cooperation of my long-suffering wife and my extensive collection of loofah dildos.
From the Digby link:
But Shannon, the product of two Celtic parents, didn't go in for cosmetic enhancements. His 6' 4 frame was well toned by constant athletics, and his pale white skin was flawless--another genetic gift. Shannon's looks, which he thoroughly capitalized on, made him a natural for television."
Wow, who'da thunk it? The Pillsbury Doughboy is 6' 4"(or 4 somethin') and his real name is Shannon Michaels.
Holy Moly Senate committee approves bill to regulate tobacco products...I guess the repugs handing out tobacco money on the floor of the senate is a big no no now. Oh and who's the unlucky C&Ler chosen to watch the O'Reilly Factor for his take on Stark? Any volunteers?
My guess is that he'll "never speak of it again" because if he did he'd be in violation of a court order.
I'll bet there's something in there about having to stay at least 500 feet away from her too.
Why does this blog spend so much time worrying about Bill O'Reilly? Who cares?
The key to what Bill said is that "no wrong doing occurred on either side". "No wrong doing on either side" means that Mackris told the truth and Bill "The Culture Warrior" O'Reilly really did say all of that stuff.
blogenfreude @ 43:
Mammon forgave Vitter?
myiq2xu @ 51:
BFD - all sky scrapers are phallic symbols.
What I want to know is would you consider the Pentagon to be a vulvic symbol?
Had to stop the vid right where Bill0 implored us not to believe everything we hear and read. That statement, coming from Mr. Kool-Aid himself..
How about the Malmedy Massacre, just for one instance of your shameless 'journalistic' legacy..? Have the historians at FOX been able to rewrite the history books yet enough to your liking..?
Interesting double standard...BIllDo feels dragging folks through their past a valuable activity but his transgressions should "never be discussed again"
That folks.is being able to dish it out but not take it, or cowardice.
I bet he won't talk about it anymore(he did enough talking on the phone).I don't like to talk about things that embarass me either like when I woke up with well you get my point.
No spin. Ha.
And he's the one who made the case case public...
fdkjnvs @ 56:
You do, or you wouldn't be here.
Thank you for your concern.
Dave @ 57:
Yes, undoubtedly. I think we're all in agreement here that since he settled out of court in a civil case to a sexual harrassment charge that he must be guilty. And anyone guilty of sexual harrassment should at the very least be fired from their job.
We're all surely in agreement on that. No matter what his
approvalratings are.Yellow Elephant Safari @ 59:
...? What kind of girls have you been dating? Wait, I'm not sure I want to know.
Yellow Elephant Safari @ 59:
No, but I once went to Moaning Cave.
So on the video he says "the lawyers say, there was no wrongdoing".
Isn't that lawyer-speak for "We paid her and in return she signed a document that says there was no wrongdoing" ?
Bill Who?
I'm sick of "family" con groups defending Bill. They memory hole his sexual harassment of Mackris and his dirty novel from the 90's. All they care about is their tax cut with "social conservative" window dressing
Princess@ 66:
Princess never disappoints with parroting the ratings rant. Thanks, doll.
jr @ 71:
I know what you mean, jr. It's just unbelievable these groups would defend sexual harrassment because they agree with him politically. Sickening. How could they ever claim in good conscience that he cares about women?
Speaking of right wing media machines, check out this story on John Edwards:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070801/ap_on_el_pr/edwards_attorneys
Isn't it nice how Rudy, Fred, and Mitt never have to deal with these hatchet job "news" stories?
Most companies would fire an employee who so blatantly and expensively sexually harassed another employee. Doesn't Fox have a policy prohibiting sexual harassment and if so why didn't they enforce it here?
myiq2xu @ 68:
Yeah, plus there's that 600-foot hole in the ground they call the Martha Washington Monument.
And Bill's wife. What in the world must she be thinking? Probably had no clue what was going on.
What would Zeus do? @ 75:
Good point, WWZD. They'd probably just give the job to his wife, knowing he'd be around to advise her. Hypocrites that they are.
O'Reilly is obviously a hypocrite, but sometimes its better to be the bigger person. Going all Happiness on O'Reilly's ass will just make people feel sorry for him.
dennis @ 77:
Dennis, which part of this do you not get? To paraphrase: It's the hypocrisy, stupid.
Your lame attempt to steer this back to a "blame Clinton" meme demonstrates a serious disorder of your psyche.
billo is fucking stupid. a settlement does not say he did nothing wrong, to the contrary it implies guilt, it was a settlement not a dismissal of the case.
BILLO YOU ARE A FUCKHEAD.
AND billo, i will take your advise and not believe anything you say or do.
IT'S ALL LIES OUT OF YOUR MOUTH.
Having worked with various psychopaths, incest perps, pedophiles, murderers, GBH guys, B & E artists, and others, one thing they have in common, if you cannot prove they did it they think they didn't; if they paid their victim off they mustn't have done it! Hmn! Wonder who that reminds me of?
Yesterday, Dkos was very funny. With all the hand wringing, Kossacks writing that Stark would be prosecuted, that he would be sued for slander, that this incident would be used by the Reich Wingers to further justify O'Reilly's jhiad against the Liberal Blogosphere.
But, guess what? Mike Stark shoved O'Lielly's face into his own shit as if he were house-breaking a dog (badly). And, you know what we hear from FOX, from Billo, from the Reich Wing over this "outrageous" invasion of Billo's neighborhood?
Crickets. Nothing. As far as they are concerned, Mike's raid didn't happen. Because what Billo did was indefensible and what Stark did was perfectly legal, and morally responsible. I'm sorry, but the gloves have to come off.
Capabilty Jones @ 83:
I like the analogy.
Capabilty Jones @ 83:
Nice work!
I still have BO's kids in my prayers, though. Not for all their "suffering" from Stark's actions... but because they're BO's kids. That would totally suck.
Old Billy @ 80:
OBill, I'm well aware of the hypocrisy. I don't like hypocrisy at all. I'm sure you don't either.
dennis @ 86:
Hip-hop-ocracy, on the other hand, would be really cool.
You know, I think Bill might actually be dealing with histrionic personality disorder ... it makes sense really.
False Victimization and all....
"I heard Andrea got over 6 million dollars from FOX. ... BillO sexually harasses, threatens and then goes public to scare her—"
AND FOX PAYS OFF FOR THE FUCKING SICK SEX CRIMINAL!!!!! how in the -HELL- did things get to this - now the LARGEST MEDIA CORP IN THE WORLD IS PAYING OFF VICTIMS FOR GIVING SEX CRIMINALS TV SHOWS!!!!
this is sick sick shit. i don't think it borders on fascism. i think it's full-blown gonzo.
Old Billy @ 80:
Bwahahahahahahahahaha!
myiq2xu @ 90:
Was I the only one who got it?
HEY EVERYBODY! IT'S OFFICIALLY BEER-THIRTY!
I'm really torn on this one. I mean, afterall, isn't this just about sex? Isn't he allowed one grope? Couldn't Andrea Mackris be trailer trash? She accepted the money; couldn't she just be making these allegations because he's a powerful figure and she's out for his money. Couldn't she have been financed by powerful and wealthy men who hate O'Reilly and want to see him go down?
Lots of questions. No real answers.
I'll bet that it is not that he chooses never to speak about the incident ever again, but that it is part of the settlement that neither party divulge any part of the settlement.
dennis @ 92:
Thank you for your concern
Mike Stark's protest worked.
It is great to see left wing blogs bashing BO and not Stark.
Thank you.
Mike is smearing, Billo's favorite word, with poo straight from Bill's mouth.
myiq2xu @ 94:
Uriq1/2xmine,
You are welcome, sir. The satire is over for now. My concern now turns to Minneapolis. I hope and pray there are no fatalities.
Bill claims he's looking out for us. The Truth is he's on the PROWL.
dennis @ 97:
I thought at first that your post was satirical because of it's obvious mimicking of GOP talking points. But then I went back and read your other posts and thought you were being sincere.
I apologize for not recognizing your superior intellect and for not comprehending your great wit.
Thank you for taking the time from your many other concerns to instruct this lowly scum.
dennis @ 92:
No, Mackris isn't a Paula Jones style fraud. Billo did it.
dennis @ 92:
I'm with you, brother. There's all this stuff out there they're talking about such as evolution and global warming. Sure, there's all this "evidence," "scientific community consensus," and stuff, but no easy-to-understand "facts."
And no, he's not allowed one "grope," unless said grope is consensual. Is Vick allowed one dead dog that wasn't put down because it was terminally-ill?
Lots of questions...
RancidVenison @ 101:
Maybe he needs grope therapy.
Maybe he needs grope therapy.
That's the first pun-ny fun I've seen/heard in years. I honestly thought the technique was dead, but that was good sh@t.
RancidVenison @ 103:
I was often punished as a child
I really like that Haloscan turns "sh@t" into a link that opens your email program to send a letter to sh at t. Holy Sh@t that's funny.
RancidVenison @ 105:
I laughed so hard I nearly sh@t myself
Who Sh@t in the Hat?
OK, I'm done. It was fun, and the fun was like none. But the fun is done, and what's done is done.
Similar to--but highly different from--BO's defense.
RancidVenison @ 107:
So he groped for her bun, and bragged of his gun. but she said "gotta run" after FOX paid a million.
i read some of the transcripts (obviously taped) from the Mackris lawsuit. let me preface this by saying i've worked 20 years for a very large city police department. i have to say bill o"reilly is one sick fucker. he"s taped masturbating and having an orgasm while using a vibrator. holy shit that santimonious shit head saying he"s innocent???????omigod he"s so guilty!!!!!!!
Please notice in this clip how, when O'Reilly says, "There was no wrongdoing by anyone".. the "by anyone" part is almost a whisper....as if he didn't want to say it, but was forced to.
My guess is that part of the settlement with Andrea's lawyers included an agreement that O'Reilly say that not only was he not at fault, but Andrea Mackis had not done anything wrong either!!!
In other words, Bill O'Reilly totall got OWNED!!!
Question to ask, for the next person who goes on Bill O'Reilly's show:
"In your final statement about the Andrea Mackis case, you say NOBODY did anything wrong? How is it possible that nobody can be wrong, when one side was claiming sexual harassment and the other side was completely denying the allegations?"
No doubt Bill O'Reilly will be suing Crooks and Liars for Slander... and with just cause... Malice should be easy to prove and he was never found G-U-I-L-T-Y... Hope you can back up the $6 million claim, but don't think you can ever prove he's guilty of anything... dumbasses
[Dumbasses? I guess we should be expecting a visit from Fox Security? I hope you didn't pay too much for the legal advice that was the basis of your post.-- An amused sitemonitor]
If FOX Security is as true to the high standard of FOX's "Fair and Balanced", Its competence is only equal to their slogans misrepresentation...............
Willy Wonka @ 111:
Perhaps, Crooks and Liars should remind you right-wingers of Bill O'Reilly's hatred and wishing that al-Qaeda blow up the Coit Tower in San Francisco. Use, well, O'Reilly's words on himself and see if he "sues" Crooks and Liars for wishing an American city be targeted by terrorists. Let's review what O'Reilly said in his aiding and comforting of al-Qaeda:
"And if al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we’re not going to do anything about it. We’re going to say, “Look, every other place in America is off limits to you except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.”
Bill O’Reilly is a very grandiose person to start with. How about the families who live in San Francisco? How about the firemen who put the fires out in the earthquakes for which the Coit Tower was named and built after? Its relevant because O’Reilly went on the air, half-cocked, and chose the Coit Tower because he attirbuted the shape of the Coit Tower with a phallic symbol and of course associated and targeted that with San Francisco, because of its “gay populace.” Yes, this is how deranged people like O’Reilly are. These people wish harm and violence on others when making their sanctimonious points to baseless arguments. I am still pissed that the government and the FCC who cared so much about Janet Jackson’s boob you never really saw but were told you did, allow for this repugnant O’Reilly to escape justice and oversight on his calls for San Francisco to be targeted by al-Qaeda. Of course, Ann Coulter wished Timothy McVeigh had also blown up the NY Times building as well. These people are deranged and I am not making ad hominem attacks. Go stand in the middle of a mall and make the comments that Coulter made regarding the NY Times building or what O’Reilly said about the Coit Tower in San Francisco and see how long before the white coats show up to bring you to the nearest insane asylum.
Yeah, I hope John puts up O'Reilly's threats about al-Qaeda bombing San Francisco. Since O'Reilly has never retraced those terrorist comments, I doubt he'd be one to sue over those comments which the majority of Americans would find repulsive if he was more exposed about saying such violent things. Let's see O'Reilly try to sue anyone for asking al Qaeda to blow up and attack an American city. I hope C&L gives O'Reilly a whole thread regarding his bombastic suggestions that al Qaeda attack the Coit Tower in San Francisco. And, I doubt O'Reilly would sue over comments he not only repeatedly made but that he defended in hoping al Qaeda bomb San Francisco and that O'Reilly even urged them to come to the United States to do it. I see O'Reilly has a criminal mind and no, he would not sue over his forked tongue comments made about letting his al Qaeda pals attack San Francisco. Its time to call right wingers on their giving aid and comfort and inciting al Qaeda terrorists to attack America. O'Reilly proved this in 2005.
The difference between Clinton and O'Reilly is women want to fuck Clinton.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnItMqSoBUo
Clip from The Showbiz Show with David Spade.
Funny!!
Gayle @ 115:
David Spade funny? That's like Bill O'Rielly insightful.
In the old BOR statement C&L posted, it sounds as if he is wanting us to believe that he ceased (settled) litigation in order to protect his family from all the media attention. Yeah, right. He wasn't so big on protecting his family from this case when he vowed to fight the charges. He was willing to put his family through it all - until he found out she had recorded him. LOL!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6242870/
Pervert. No wonder he's such a maniacal supporter of the Gathering Of Perverts.
Grant @ 11:
Ha, my geekiness let me down on that post, my bit starts with Jeeeesus ;-)
Jeeeesus Hhhhhhhhh Keeeeeeerist.
Didn’t we deal with resistance as being multi faceted already. Oh, and I believe I pointed out to you the power of humour to awaken, and there is no more powerful force for change than awake awareness.
Focus is important of course yet can be fatal. Should you doubt the side effects of the full frontal, over the top chaps approach, I point you to Blackadder 4.
The last thing you folks need at the moment is to emulate Lions led by Donkeys.
Lighten up Francis.*
A quaint american expression I’m led to believe, did I use it correctly?
Willy Wonka @ 111:
Real name: Willy Wanker
Democratic rivals in race to recruit bloggers
Is this why BOR is hammering away at the YearlyKos convention?
Login or Register to post comments.