Nobody needs to set the record straight on O'Reilly. The man is a pathological liar, remember a few years back when he was accused of sexual harassment, made a big deal about denying it and then settled the case. The man has no character.
But, just to "set the record straight," I don't notice Jim asking you what you are doing posting on a closed forum on an anti-FReeper site. By the way, there's a great little search feature on that site, even though you aren't posting publicly, it's still shows your activity. Now see, THAT is what I call "unfairness" is people like you you have the gall to say one thing on FR, only to run off to a closed thread on an anti-FReeper site. So, back to "setting the record straight," what involvement did the banned FRiberals have in telling O'Reilly that FR was a "hate site"?
Now that's an interesting question.
Good questions wagglebee. It’s not difficult to sit back at a slight distance and see ill motives. As a hypothetical, if I wanted JR and FR to get smeared/hammered with residual impact as well, one way to do it would be to push for an appearance on BORat’s non-factor show.
Some may suggest it...being naive to the ways of the political world, but someone with years suggesting such a thing throws up ill motive flags to me.
All of your accusations are false, wagglebee, and if you have done a search at what you refer to as an "anti-Freeper" site, you should know that. I can only assume that you are referring to the Wideawakes website. If not, please tell me where this site is that you are referring to.
What do those who believe in "moral absolutes" say about malicious slander, Mr. Wagglebee?
If anyone is interested in finding out if your accusations are true, I encourage them to ask you for the link to your chosen "anti-Freeper" website and to check it out for themselves.
>>But, just to “set the record straight,” I don’t notice Jim asking you what you are doing posting on a closed forum on an anti-FReeper site. By the way, there’s a great little search feature on that site, even though you aren’t posting publicly, it’s still shows your activity<<
Do you really want to take that approach of criticizing someone for where they speak rather than for what they say.
This is at least the third time she has come into a thread and pinged Jim with trolling. There was nothing wrong with the question but it was asked and answered and the needling went on.
The one I really remember is her characterization of people who were banned as merely having “concerns about our borders and illegals.”
No doubt errors are made (the mods are human, after all) but generally speaking there were behavior problems, racism and/or violence advocacy as a common trait.
So I think we could discuss this based on what has actually been said rather than what sites someone visits.
I, for example have an account on a famous left wing radical board but I would feel no shame if you read every word I posted there... well, maybe a little shame since you might well feel I’m wasting time arguing that could be better spent elsewhere... but hopefully you get my point.