Originally Posted by Yagmi

Like I said.. he did finally answer.. but he "prefaced" the answer.... if it were turned around he would have cut the interview and said "you didn't answer".. I have seen the asshole do it too many times....

Originally Posted by Adept1

By the way that 15 second preface to the Obama question was a COMMERCIAL for O'Reilly's show for you to come see what happened at the Clinton rally.

So now another clip that doesn't prove your point.

Bill is actually VERY fair to almost everyone he interviews and he is perfectly entitled to point out that someone is NOT answering a question, re-ask the question and when they REFUSE to answer again give them one last chance before he stops wasting everyones valuable time. See if THIS is not exactly what he did and not to mention the cut-off was not immediate he continued to allow her to filibuster.

Is the ONLY O'Reilly you see from you-tube? I'm sure you get such an accurate cross section there. And if you claim to watch his show. Why? I don't waste my time watching things I hate and despise unless I am learning from them. And I know you couldn't be learning anything from Bill.

Originally Posted by Adept1

These two stories are completely compatible they are the same story from 2 different sides and if you have ever taken "statements" from any two people about an incident you would realize that. Usually if you take statements from the 2 sides of a physical confrontation the stories will differ a whole lot more than these two do. As to "spin" I couldn't find any of the 4 questions asked in the last 90 seconds where he before explaining further did not give a direct short answer. If you doubt this re-watch it again and listen a little more carefully first he gives a short answer then he embellishes. As to the first part of the interview he was asked to "explain" what happened. He did using of course his own words. The "big guy" did unintentionally and indirectly admit to "being in front" of the camera without having a purpose for it.
You seem to want to divide people because you "dislike" Bill who happens to be the MOST WATCHED/HIGHEST RATED commentator in the news business. Please note: He is not a "news man" he is specifically a COMMENTATOR. His job is to MAKE COMMENTS on the news of the day. When people dislike someone they "attack" them unfairly especially if they can't prove them wrong.

Originally Posted by Idealogically Promiscuous

Just more typical hate of O'Reilly with no real substance to back it up. Liberal play tactic #1: When you can't disprove, smearing is always a good backup plan.

Originally Posted by foundit66

Funny how you employ what you condemn in your very own post.

And I'm sure it's just my imagination that the "conservative play tactics" never include calling somebody a "Bush hater".
Or accusations of "terrorist sympathizer".

Oh no. It's ONLY the liberals.
And if any of the conservatives were to do the above, I'm sure people could count on you to speak up against it...
< end sarcasm >

Originally Posted by Idealogically Promiscuous

Blah blah blah.

Originally Posted by IP

The whole issue is trumped up and blown out of proportion.

Originally Posted by foundit66

To borrow your words: "Just more typical hate ... with no real substance to back it up."



But it's only the liberals who do that, right?
Or is that another thing that is "trumped up and blown out of proportion"?