Posted on 10/13/2004 1:31:31 PM PDT by scottybk
O'Reilly in trouble!
Not so. You see prejudice because you are.
Kerry is not going to go near O'Reilly now.
???? Apologies for not having a clue what "Reynold Wrap man" is. Please elaborate.
My dad was once run over by one of those old Fordson tractors with the big spiked rear wheels. Interestingly enough, the spikes missed him and he escaped with some bruising.
I don't think O'Reilly will be so lucky.
"Again, if what she says is true, what was she supposed to do? One of the most powerful men in national news is calling her and getting off while on the phone call. Is she really just supposed to hang up on him and expect to ever work again? Hello? "
Oh PAHLEASE, O'Reilly strikes me as all talk, he is after making his living being a blowhard like Al Franken(buttmuncher), Bill Maher(weasel) and all the other media windbags. If a person like O'Reilly had talked dirty to me and he was my superior, I would've told him in a jovial manner, "hey Bill, put a sock in it before I put a knot on your head". Men always take the hint and get back to work and all is well. THIS IS A SET UP BY THE DNC GESTAPO. The broad is a trojan horse!
I am not a legal expert so I ask, is there any significance in the fact that the statements are not in quotes?
And, it seems strange that they would preface some with statements such as "O'Reilly boasted that:" in the complaint.
"Kerry is not going to go near O'Reilly now."
Probably not but I'll bet he gets a call from Bill Clinton.
I really don't want to hear this, but when I read the headline ------ why wasn't I surprised? When I would see him interviewing some chick, he would act like a fool. He would have a leer grin and I would think to myself---'you jerk! Pay attention to the subject'!
Kinda puts Bill's comments about Dan in a whole new light, doesn't it?
IF he were to be replaced, my tagline ought to give you a hint. ;)
Seriously, if this was a Rat setup, I will go back to watching him, because I am sick and tired of the DNC doing this to anyone who opposes them.(and getting away with it, while their sins go unpunished)
Remember the threat Ed Asner made? He said they went after Rush, then they were going after Hannity. Guess they didn't find anything, so they went after the O.
Hill didn't have ANY proof. Only her word against Justice Thomas's.
Things turned out well for her.
"Next up on the factor, has the phone company been giving you hassles during long conversations? We'll investigate."
"Next up on the factor, are battery comapnies ripping you off? We report you decide."
All that other stuff prefaced with "indicated" or "boasted that" is hearsay except for the dinner when they were with her friend. There his statements are backed up by a witness.
Now we understand exactly don't we? Watching those peacocks strut around on TV is more interesting than the news.
He said that the test for voting for the president is first decide which one the terrorist want elected, and then vote for the other one.
About the Cheney debate he asked us to imagine the debate being broadcast into the cave of the terrorists and asking us which one the terrorists would be afraid of.
dont tell it to me please. im trying to be nice. you do the same.
The lawsuit against O'Reilly is damaging enough. When they get to the discovery phase--after a sea of motions, I suspect--it's going to get even messier.
I just can't believe O'Reilly was this stupid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.