As someone who has and still does teach womens self-defense programs, I can tell you that common sense/awareness is the first order of defense. No one will tell a women she deserves to be assaulted because she dresses a certain way. Thats nonsense.

But walking alone is an unsafe area hightens the possibility.. Dress doesnt matter that much but drugs or drinking does, especially in colleges.

I can't even remember how many talks we have given at colleges where we hightlight "red flags" to be on the look out for when we mention party's with guys and drinking and drugs.. and the women look at each other shaking their heads as yep..THATS what happened!

So OReily isnt wrong in one respect.. use your head! he is wrong if he is saying he dress added to the risk!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why are people who are continuously harassed by the BillO minions not taking legal action? Seems to me you have grounds for at least a Restraining order. Stop posting your outrage and go after them through legal means.
As for Woman, It is a know fac tthat there are psychos in the world and woman are targets regardless of what they wear- including military uniforms. This is where woman need to use common sense. No one deserves to be raped, but one can try to eliminate the possiblity. As a female, who was assaulted I have become far more diligent about what I am doing, where I am and what 'messages' I may be sending. Granted there are no sure fire safeguards, but again we are intelligent beings and should act as such.
In that same vein, woman who are beat up and return to their abuser even though they have opportunities to leave should not be considered victims when they are beat up again.These women responsible for their decision- they are intelligent beings and thus the results are self inflicted.
I've known plenty of abused woman and everytime they get beat up they want someone to console them- I don't. Get out or realize that you are a masochist and are doing this really to yourself. Doing the same thing over & over and expecting a different result-isn't just insanity or stupidity, it's self destructiveness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I hate O'Reilly, but what he said is true: If the young woman had not been drunk, she probably would be alive today. This statement does not condone rape. Young women, especially college age, need to be more aware about the dangers of drinking and getting drunk. This is how it always happens: the girl is drunk. The boy or boys take advantage. Sometimes they are strangers, often they are fellow students.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm not quite sure if this rises to the level of libel by Oh'Really but I do agree he and fox should be sued to the wall if it does.

I'm mildly flabbergasted that people are defending his incredibly insensitive comments about a woman who suffered and died. I'm not even mildly surprised that he left his initial comments completely out of the segment. This is just more bullying by a cowardly asinine fool.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How much the tactics of Fox News have come to resemble those of the Phelps clan.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I do agree with him that at least every predator on the block, is going to have their radar beeping at the site of a young girl in a miniskirt and halter top at 2 am.

That's a statement of truth, as disgusting as it is, about the perp and the situation and not a judgement on the girl IMO. O'Reilly judged the girl for her drunkenness.

I am not trying to defend the guy here because I actually believe that he is as terrible a person as the original article made him out to be. But it was a stretch to base the, in my opinion, true judgement on that quote.

I went and listened to the show after reading the original article and the show was not about, in any way, how young girls should expect to be raped if they dress for the club which is exactly how Amanda portrayed Bill.

I think honestly the author is playing the victim here. Seriously, you can't remember anything about the Mel Gibson reference? I recalled it easily and I didn't write the article. Harassment aside Amanda should have been much more on her game than that. Also with so much hype pre-event where was all the follow up reporting on what Billo eventually said at the function?

There are plenty of avenues to pointing out what a sexist Bill is. Him slated to speak at that dinner was ridiculous to be sure but we should leave the sound bites that require conjecture in the bin. Bill will eventually give us clearly what we all know he is capable of.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Protecting yourself against abusive men is a nice idea, but 18 year olds and 20 year olds simply don't have enough experience and that is what predators take advantage of. If a potential target manages to protect herself, all she has done is forced the predator to move along to someone less aware. That means a younger and less able target all too often.

Predator priests didn't used to molest altar boys. They didn't have to because there always was an ample supply of young nuns, priests and brothers to take advantage of who could be counted on to keep silent out of loyalty to the church. The target has shifted because most of those in a religious vocation have become too old.

Ending the excuses for abusive behavior would do more than any self-defense advice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This scumbag is not trying to protect your privacy; he's trying to steal your identity.

If you click on his "Privacy Center" hyperlink, the server the link points to will install a keylogger on your computer, which is used to steal your credit card number, SSN, etc.

Please, report the comment to Alternet's staff.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

philosophy of the right. They get raped, it is a crime, you get raped and you deserved it, you get fired, you are incompetent and lazy, they get fired, and the union is out to get them. You cheat on your spouse and they vilify you, they cheat and god forgives them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I really don´t think that Bill O´Reilly deserves the right to be on television. I know everyone deserves the right to freedom of speach. But I doubt he thinks that.


tag

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"– His Harassment. O’Reilly never mentioned to his viewers how he scored that interview with me. He never contacted me for a statement or the chance to appear on his show before deploying his harassment machine. "

If the Bill O'Reilly Show had contacted you would you have gone on the show to defend your using snippets from a show three years old?

Would you go on his show NOW to defend your article from three weeks ago with your now refreshed memory of his words?

I think you would hide under your bed before facing him with your weak twist of his words.

But if you’re interested in facing him, I am sure that could be arranged........

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You left wing loons should stop writing sensational nonsense. Some of us are focused on writing serious news.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't normally listen to Bill O'Reilly. To be honest, I don't look at Fox news or read their website (although I do check in several times a day to CNN and MSNBC, so I like real news outlets).

I can't tell you how many times I've walked women out to the parking lot because it had gotten dark, and I stand outside and wait for my best friend to get in her car and signal that she's okay every time she comes to visit.

We live in a world where women are victimized by men in countless and horrifying ways, and I for one am sick and tired of it.

But Bill was not suggesting that poor girl was raped because she was wearing inappropriate clothing. His point - which he made several times during the broadcast - is that alcohol kills. If Jennifer had not been drunk (illegally at that since she was only 18), she would not have ended up without a car, separated from her friend, walking along a highway, and getting into a car with a stranger who raped and killed her.

Is it Jennifer's fault that she was raped and murdered? Hell no! And Bill never suggests it was. He blames alcohol and wonders why parents don't teach their children how dangerous getting drunk can be.

I also question Ms. Turkel's ethics. The entire radio conversation centers around the murder victim and around Mel Gibson. He's mentioned several times, and based on what the Turkel said, she wrote the column three weeks earlier. If she had listened to the entire discussion instead of reacting to one comment with no context, she would have remembered the Mel Gibson angle.

Defending yourself by saying the radio broadcast was three years ago is a false and misleading argument - you didn't write about it three years ago, you wrote about it three weeks ago. That is irresponsible journalism.

I have no interest in listening to Bill O'Reilly. I'm not his audience to say the very least. But nothing he said deserved such a ridiculous reaction from Turkel, and I have to commend him on responding in a rational (if at times hyperbole-filled) manner.

I applaud Turkel and other men and women like her who are getting the message out there that rape is never acceptable or deserved. Rapists are animals who prey on vulnerable women, and it is disgusting that so often women end up being victimized even more if they report rape. That's just wrong.

But I don't think O'Reilly's comments warranted the reaction given. Yes, he references Jennifer's miniskirt (in the context that she's drunk, alone, wearing provocative clothing, wandering down a highway in New York City). But he's upset because if she had not been drinking, she would never have been in that position. And that's a reasonable argument.

It's not her fault she was raped and murdered. But people have to understand that getting drunk is not a joke - it can have serious and even deadly consequences. O'Reilly was giving a cautionary tale, not saying that women who wear miniskirts should "expect to be raped" as Terkel claims.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

By ambush, I assume they didn't identify themselves as Faux News when they initiated the interview. Could it be that you where you caught up in the moment and looking for a little fame? This could have been your big break out of the blogosphere and into MSM? Maybe Bill Maher would have you on his show! I guess that kinda backfired on ya... ironically, now you're the victim! The more you fight, the more pathetic you will look. Faux News doesn't f*ck around - if they feel slighted, they will burn you.

Hell, they could have followed you around or stalked you during your entire vacation, but if you don't talk to them, they have nothing to report. And if they get on your nerves or they get in your face or "ambush" you... you no doubt (like most people these days) carry a damn cell phone - call the friggin police. Get them cited for harassment.

Luckily, one possible positive thing is that most of the people who watch Faux News probably never heard of you and probably will never read your blog, so I'd say your safe - maybe a little bruised ego and extra wary next time someone sticks a microphone in your face - but you'll be okay.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If his point was solely that excessive alcohol consumption leads to negative consequences, then why did he comment on what the victim was wearing? It seems to me that his "off the cuff" remark about her attire was extremely insensitive and completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. Also, referring to Moore and her friend as "moronic" didn't seem too sensitive either.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

He knows probably most of what he says is BS and that he is nothing more than a dishonest sanctimonious propagandist. He ambushes people, catches them off guard, then throws accusations at them, doing the exact same thing he baselessly accuses every single person he dislikes of doing.

Despite his tough-guy exterior he's basically a wimp, who is terrified not of physical harm, but of criticism, especially when it is accurate. Seriously look at the stories behind every single one of these people he ambushes. They have not actually lied, they've simply said things that have been truthful. Granted he has criticized people in the past accurately for excessive Hyperbole, but it pales in comparison to his own. Do you ever see Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, or Michael Savage act like this? Hell no, they just shrug it off or respond with insults. Walter Williams, Paul Craig Roberts, Thomas Sowell; they respond with counter-criticism, or at least insults that aren't idiotic or just all ad hominems. Even Glenn Beck comports with more dignity than Bill http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/ reviews.cfm/id/1611/page/ glenn_beck__conservative_bawl_boy.html

http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=f1KQw5D2Vos&feature =channel_page

and he's....well Glenn Beck.

Bill gets apoplectic at those who point out that reality does not conform to his world-view

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ allison-kilkenny/ progressives-won-and-that_b_144399.html

(this is more an example of his refusal to accept it)
this on the other hand
http://mediamatters.org/ issues_topics/tags/ bill_o_reilly?f=h_hot

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You and people like you are mean, evil, and hateful people. I am sure that you will delete this comment because you only want to show people that pat you on the back for the atrocious acts you do to other people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am not a great fan of O'Reilly though I do at times watch his show. I wonder if Amanda Terkel or anyone at this or any other sight that attacked him over his comments about the unfortunate victim of rape EVER even WATCH his show.

O'Reilly consistently defends the rights of crime victims. He attacks sexual predators and points out those judges and politicians who give light sentences or early release to them. I actually believe he goes too far at times, defending the victims at the cost of the accused rights. To attack him for his comments about this poor girl and to not point out the work he does for victims, all the time he gives them on his show is simply sad. I challenge Keith Olbermann to be as concerned about the victimized if he can drag himself away from the mirror long enough.

I understand that the left hates O'Reilly but distorting reality to defame him, and by these efforts to defame him causing damage to a great cause like the Alexa Foundation, is wrong.

Miss Terkel may not have intended to do harm to the Foundation but the net result of her actions and the actions of others who slammed them for having O'Reilly as a speaker was to do just that.

Miss Terkel if you feel so much for the rights of rape victims, you should interview Alexa Branchini and let others know about her and her foundation.

Thank you for your time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I would hire about 20 or so paparazzi to go after that stalker/producer Jessie. Check out the interview here that Keith Olbermann did with Amanda Terkel http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/29868804#29868804

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

An overpaid actor playing the part of a real journalist, a job for which it is obvious he is completely unqualified.

With love under will,

Bob, Adastra,
The Wizzard of Jacksonville

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To stack up a drunk person who runs his mouth next to a drunk person who gets raped does not make BOR's position more sympathetic. Nobody did anything *to* Mel Gibson; he got drunk and spewed racist bile. He was in control of, and responsible for, his situation. In contrast, a girl who gets raped, no matter where she was, what she was doing, or what she was wearing, somebody did something to her that she didn't deserve or ask for. Nobody blames a family who gets robbed for putting their big TV where you can see it from the living room window; nobody blames the victim of a carjacking for driving a Beemer. Why is it acceptable to discuss rape any differently?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Woman can’t match men physically. That leaves them with 2 choices. They can either be dependent on a man –husband, family, or (incompetent ) police- or they can learn the meaning of Samuel Colt’s statement above.

I don’t think Mr. Brown would reoffend if his chest was filled with .45cal hollow points.

(Copied from a previous post)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've watched a couple more videos of Amanda Terkel discussing how badly she was treated by Bill O'Reilly, and I want to ask a question. Why does she keep talking about Jennifer being raped but never mentions that she was murdered afterwards? This seems bizarre to me.

Terkel can play the victim as many times as she wants, but I find it disgusting that she wrote a column based on a blog post she read, gets upset because she's asked questions about the context of O'Reilly's statements and it's obvious she never listened to his monologue, then tries to gain fame by pimping herself out over the corpse of a girl she refuses to mention was murdered.

Is she so obsessed with being proven right that she thinks the fact that Jennifer was viciously killed is trivial, something that shouldn't be mentioned?

Shame on you, Amanda! Jennifer was an eighteen-year-old girl who didn't deserve to be brutally raped and murdered because she made the mistake of getting drunk. Pretending that Bill O'Reilly is the bad guy because he wants to warn underage children about the dangers of alcohol is weird. But pretending that he blamed Jennifer's choice of clothes for being raped, then refusing to even mention that the poor girl was tragically killed, seems opportunistic, inhumane and appalling.

The woman was murdered. Why are you afraid to say that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tommy you are right. The reason she does not mention that the girl was murdered is that the girl wasn't her concern. She was concerned with making O'Reilly look like an insensitive a** who attacks rape victims.

The agenda of Miss Terkel, Olbermann and their ilk is to make critics of their position look like horrible people.

The fact that they never attack people who share their beliefs and never have honest discussions with those who disagree is proof of their narrow-mindedness.

Say what you want about O'Reilly and Fox News in general (and I do not like all Fox News... Fox and Friends is putrid.... Morning Joe on MSNBC is much better) but at least they have people with opposing points of view on their shows. Olberman would commit seppuku (ritual suicide) before he allowed a conservative on his show.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

With all do respect, you where called out for a rather bad article you wrote. After being confronted, you play the victim. What's relly sad, is the spot light has been taken of the real victims.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't talk to them. If you absolutely have to, tell them "I'm on vacation, leave me alone, quit harrassing me," etc. Nothing they can quote in any way that satisfies them. Get in your car and drive to a police station and report that you're being followed and harrassed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bill "vile O'Really" O'Reilly, is one paranoid and guilt ridden dude. Anal retentive poster child. Lying is not detested, it's encouraged and practiced, as a science on Fix News. Who is still watching that gas? It should banned from TV.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why?? Because after you empty a porta-potty the stuff you have left sticking to the inside is the same as that which comprises numbnuts brain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I always suspected O'riely was a moron, but this really is beyond the pale!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

O'Reilly is a tool. The article, though pretty worthless, is simply another observation that the Corporate Media thugs just want to blame the victim. I'm not sure why targeting women in this way helps their corporate agendas - maybe it's a reflection of paranoia about a disintegrating patriarchal system.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That says it all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sheez.... Really how thick are your all's skulls? O'Reilly DID NOT blame the girl. He pointed out that drunkeness can lead to bad decisions that can place you in a danger. How can any of you deny this? Haven't you ever made an idiotic choice or done something foolish when you were drunk? Haven't you ever lost or forgotten anything while you were drunk?

This girl did nothing to bring about her rape and murder. She increased her danger by losing her car and walking alone along a highway. That does not mean what happened to her is her fault. It is the fault of the vile pig that assaulted and murdered her. But, do you really think she would have been been killed if she and her friend had been sober and had driven home in their own car?

Allowing your hatred and contempt for O'Reilly to overwhelm your reason is rather foolish.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rapists are always wrong. Murderers are always wrong. Burglers and assassins and cheaters are always in the wrong. It seems like that should be a given. The victim is not guilty of the crime. Period.

Having said that, we do live in a world in which crime happens and, in some cases, can be avoided. If I forget to lock my car and someone steals my CDs, I am not the criminal, but I might say, "Oh, rats. I should have locked my car." On the other hand, the thief might have broken into my car anyhow, but at least I'd know I took precautions. Jennifer Moore might have been accosted outside her home, raped, and murdered in any case, but it was a lot more likely to happen while she was isolated and drunk. I'M NOT SAYING IT WAS HER FAULT!!! IT WAS NOT any more than having my car robbed would be my fault if I didn't lock my car. It's always, always, always the criminal's fault.

OF COURSE no woman should have to worry about being attacked, raped, and murdered. And no one should have to worry that his or her house will be broken into and robbed. But in the real world, women who are alone, drunk, and vulnerable do get attacked. This is a fact of life. People who go on vacation and leave their homes unlocked and unattended do get robbed. We know that, so we lock our doors, put in burglar alarms, and get house sitters. It doesn't always work, but it lessens the vulnerability.

OF COURSE our society should be teaching men that violence against women is wrong - and that violence against any victim is wrong. In a perfect world, that would be enough. But there are men - and women, too - who are psychopaths, serial killers, sexual predators, and other equally horrific monsters. And we need to find a way to protect ourselves against them.

Teaching people to defend themselves does not just mean giving them karate lessons. It also means teaching ourselves, men and women, to be aware of dangerous situations, just as we do young children. A child who wanders away from his or her mother in a department store and then accepts candy from a stranger is not a criminal. That child is most assuredly a victim, but it does not make sense to say that we simply need to make pedaphiles aware of how wrong their behavior is. Instead, we teach children not to take candy from strangers or to get into strangers' cars.

Rapists are not performing sexual acts as much as acts of power and control and violence. Rapists and murderers are going to exist, no matter how much our society places emphasis on respect for each other, gentleness, nurturing, and caring.

OF COURSE women should not HAVE to protect themselves or be careful or watch where they go alone at night. OF COURSE little children should not have to be careful on playgrounds and in parks and when walking home from school. But is it common sense to ignore reality?

Making every effort to educate people to behave better and cautioning women to beware are not mutually exclusive. For those who responded to the comments that women need to be careful where they go and what they do with "how about teaching men to respect women," I AGREE. But that does not mean we can't do both.

I sincerely hope this post does not in any way indicate that I think a rape victim deserves what she gets. I, too, believe any woman should be able to walk down any street, path, or secluded area nude without being attacked. I also believe any child should be able to play on any playground or park without any danger of being abducted. Any homeowner should be able to leave the door unlocked without fear of burglary. Anyone who wants to work should make a living wage, and any person who gets ill should not ever, ever wind up in bankruptcy.

But in this life, we very often do not get what we deserve. Because of this simple fact, we need to be aware of danger including sexual predators and murderers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

O'Rielly might be a Muslim if he isn't full Neanderthal...Sharia Law would go along with his macho thought process.

Bill, I say, "If you can't control it cut it off". Similar to "If Thine eye offends thee then pluck it out".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Come on, Amanda and CAP! Sue O-Liely for slander/libel. He clearly lies and makes deliberate false statements during his ad hominem piece... which is all his "segment" is anyway. Sue him and Faux News.

These pricks won't go away until their cash-cows are starved.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why don't you use the petition site to create a petition thousands of us can sign and send it to Billo's corporate sponsors demanding responsibility? You could send it to other websites that hate Billo or fox news, progressive sites, plus many woman's rights groups would no doubt sign.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You should have been all over that geek, ... telling you that YOU had hurt a lot of people... I realize you were likely shocked and couldn't believe what you were hearing but they were able to cut that "interview" so that you looked like you hadn't really seen/heard the O'Reiley piece you were commenting on.

We have to be better than that if we're ever going to discredit these bastards and bring them down..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Must have been all my fault. I was drugged and in a hospital gown, (what a come on) and a few hours before giving birth. It’s always the woman’s fault isn’t it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

but I want to know how you were "forced" to give the interview. I can understand that in a way, what blogging is about is quick soundbites and criticism, and if your blogs are over-researched, they become something else, not blogs but articles. I think that distinction is important because I think it gives you a different level of accountability for things like context. If you had written the O-Reilly blog as an article in The Huffington Post, then I would be pissed that you didn't go back and listen to the whole interview and not only know the Gibson connection, but also to be able to tie that angle into why what he said was sexist and unfair. I don't expect that level of journalism from a blogger. Maybe I have low expectations.

In any case, though, it's just not okay even if you didn't know the context of your O'R quote for his team to stalk you for an interview. And most of all, you are completely right about the weird message it sends having him speak to the Alexa group. I would want to know more about them as well. O'R is too infamous to be accidentally asked to speak.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

BULLSHIT BILL strikes again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If I remember right he was sued by 2 women for sexual assault. I think it was on Oreillysucks.com. If only Bullshit Bill could have figured out what wallstreet was doing maybe we wouldn't be in the economic meltdown we are in now. Instead he was just talking bullshit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The oreily thing is a manifestation of pure idiocy. It "lives" on a level of ignorance and fear that is unbearable to see and even worse to hear from. I ignore it as I feel it is not human and consequently unqualified to comment upon humanity, although it seems to think it is it's purpose to do so. A bug that is well known and has a big bank account is still an insect

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

why is everyone discussing whether or not o'riley has a point about the girl getting drunk and raped? the point is his entirely deceiptful way in which he has handled the author of the article and i guess her employers? but then again, lying by omission is nothing new for billo.
it is an absolute disgrace to say that she has done that family harm. and if that family says she's done them harm, then i have to assume that they are getting their news from the likes of fox news...
the author does question the legitimacy of his backing the cause, and she has a legitimate claim to do that. But, i do think there's bigger fish to fry. you can see hypocricy on every level every day on those shows and by listening to rush limbaugh. but to their fans, they can rationalize it all away.
i saw the 'interview' and left it wondering just how much of 'reality' never gets put in these 'news' stories. (i swear i don't talk with air quotes in person)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]