Bill O'Reilly: Can he be any more Republican or Anti-Clinton

nippyjun

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,447
0
0
I love to watch the O'Reilly factor, but c'mon, can he be any more anti-clinton. Right now he has the anti-christ Bob Barr on and he's agreeing with everything Barr(AKA the devil) says. It's funny that when a democrat comes on and tells bill about the pardons that Regan and George Senior did; and they both pardoned a lot of terrible people; O'Reilly says that you can't justify something that is wrong now with something that is wrong in the past. Well.... if he's so concerned with persuing the truth, why start 8 years ago. Why not investigate Regan's and George Senior's pardons?
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,673
482
126
I don't know what the big deal about these pardons is. Obviously he pardoned a lot of shady people (some of whom he had dealings with), but that was within his power as the President. Even if the pardons were distasteful.

They should just drop it and move on.

Bill is probably talking about it because he has nothing else to talk about currently. I still like the guy though. ;)
 

HaVoC

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,223
0
0
Hey, they way I look at it, he couldn't be biased enough for me. It would go about 1% towards compensating for the insidious liberalism that is American "mainstream journalism" cloaked under the veil of "objectivity." Fox News is great!
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
Balt,

Clinton pardoned Rich, a fugitive on-the-run. To me that's a criminal act and I don't care if an abuse of presidential priviledge allows for it.

<< Why not investigate Regan's and George Senior's pardons? >>

Why not go back 10 years, 20, 30? No, we need to punish the power abuser today and moreover fix it so no future president get so blatantly ignore the laws of the land.

When I watch O'Reilly I find I agree with him more than not. And he's been ripping on Junior George and the Rs lately, too. But I'm sure you'll tell me that's all &quot;cover&quot; for his Secret Right-wing Mind-Clearing Agenda.
 

ignorus

Golden Member
Dec 30, 1999
1,147
0
0
I keep hearing him say the average family is in the 40% tax bracket ? If that is true, I am waaaay below average :)
 

Raspewtin

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 1999
3,634
0
0
O'Reilly seems like the type of guy to become anti-popular sentiment. I wouldn't be surprised if he become anti-Bush, if Bush's approval ratings go as high as Clinton's were (I doubt that will happen though).
 

IamDavid

Diamond Member
Sep 13, 2000
5,888
10
81
&quot;I keep hearing him say the average family is in the 40% tax bracket ? If that is true, I am waaaay below average &quot;

I think he means when you add all the different taxes up...

Bill O'Rielly is NOT pro-republican.. Just cause a man criticizes a democrat doesn't make him a Republican... I have the same feelings towards Clinton\Gore as O'Rielly and I am the farthest thing from a right wing nut job...
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Once again, the republicans are hypoctites. I remember when Bob Livingston resigned, and it came up that Henry Hyde had an affair while they were bitching about Monica. Hilarious. Now the republicans criticize Clinton for selling access, and they sell our country every day to the highest bidder. But of course when you call them on that, these self righteous pricks say &quot;Oh, it's totally different.&quot;
What a joke.
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
That show thrives on digging up dirt, doing a bit of investigative reporting, and &quot;telling it like it is&quot;. You just don't find this content on TV anymore. The days of hard-hitting 60 Minutes stuff is over. Big media conglomorates control all TV news and they attend the same parties as the politicians.

You see nothing like what's on FOX anyplace else. Anyway, in order to keep ratings high and keep audience, O'Reilly must continue the hard-line opinion stuff regardless of who's in power. And I love when Newt is on and he constantly interrupts that pompous windbag. :)
 

jacobnero6918

Senior member
Sep 30, 2000
739
0
0
If the pardons were paid for and can be proven that they were paid for then that is an entirely different matter. I don't think the President is allowed to take bribes for a pardon.

I'm sure there is some law or rule agianst that.
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
SuperTool,

Livingston and Hyde's sexual misconduct occurred decades before. Neither lied under oath. Neither defiled the Oval Office. Niether obstructed justice trying to cover it up. Etc, etc. No where near the same level of Clinton's story. But I'm sure Red will be here shortly to set me straight. :)

Yes, the Rs sell-out as much if not more than Ds. They're utterly hypocritcal when it comes to &quot;pork barrel&quot; spending. I see the same # of Ds and Rs padding bills, getting perk projects for their local constituancies, etc. etc. Politician see, politician do.
 

nippyjun

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,447
0
0
O'Reilly hardly rips on W or any republicans. Anyone who panders to the DEVIL bob barr is not fair and balanced. barr is the antichrist.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0


<< If the pardons were paid for and can be proven that they were paid for then that is an entirely different matter. >>


Of course the Republicans are much better at accusing then they are at proving things.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0


<< Livingston and Hyde's sexual misconduct occurred decades before. Neither lied under oath. Neither defiled the Oval Office. >>


Opps, I forgot, it's totally different :)
 

Jmman

Diamond Member
Dec 17, 1999
5,302
0
76
Aww, O'Reilly is good for a few laughs. I don't agree with all of his viewpoints, but I respect him for at least trying to be objective. As far as the pardons, they do have the appearance of impropriety, but I doubt if there was any bribery. Bribery, or the actual exchange of money, is really the only way that any compelling legal case could be brought against Bill. Money given to the DNC or Bill's library doesn't count as bribery. Heck, quid pro quo is the name of the game for both parties. Anyway, the Presidents power to pardon is absolute, so instead of wasting so much time trying to finally get Clinton, why don't we just move on. W seems to advocate the same thing. I also hope this will help McCain with his campaign finance reform agenda. Maybe we can regain some of the control in our political system and take it out of the hands of the special interest groups and lobbyists.....
 

DefRef

Diamond Member
Nov 9, 2000
4,041
1
81
It's kinda hard to prove things when you can count of the AG to not investigate and the promise of pardons (or execution) to silence your partners in crime.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
I think Dubya wants to sweep this under the rug because it will put pressure on him to sign the campaign finance reforms. I really think it's going to be tough for any politician to go against campaign finance reform without paying a large political price.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,934
6,793
126
I can find nothing suspicious going on in Jmman's uncouscious on this one so I'm going to agree 100% with what he said. :D
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
<< Bribery, or the actual exchange of money, is really the only way that any compelling legal case could be brought against Bill. Money given to the DNC or Bill's library doesn't count as bribery. Heck, quid pro quo is the name of the game for both parties. Anyway, the Presidents power to pardon is absolute, so instead of wasting so much time trying to finally get Clinton, why don't we just move on. >>

Jmman, I don't mean to rib you but that's exactly the attitude politicians on both sides love to hear. &quot;Forget about it.&quot; &quot;Move on.&quot; &quot;It's not worth investigating.&quot; How much corruption does it take? :(
 

Jmman

Diamond Member
Dec 17, 1999
5,302
0
76
I hear what you are saying, but if you call instances of &quot;quid pro quo&quot; corruption, 90% of politicians at all levels would be guilty. Furthermore, I think you can find similar cases to &quot;pardongate&quot; from Presidents on both sides of the aisle. I guess I just don't see going after Clinton as the solution. Reforming the system that allows this type of influence peddling to exist in the first place seems more worthwhile to me.....
 

Ferocious

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2000
4,584
2
71
1) I heard O'Reilly once say he supported the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act. Which would greatly reduce the amount of soft money given by corporations, individuals, and unions.

2) He is against the death penalty because the elite are exempt from it.

3) He is for responsible gun control legislation, is spite of the cry baby conservative hicks.

For these three reasons, I find myself watching him occasionally since he can't be all bad.
 

cxim

Golden Member
Dec 18, 1999
1,442
2
0
One day in the future, or Why are you down on Bill ?

Bill Clinton has a heart attack and dies. He immediately goes to hell, where the devil is waiting for him.

&quot;I don't know what to do here&quot;, says the devil. &quot;You are on my list, but I
have no room for you. You definitely have to stay here, so I'll tell you
what I'm going to do. I've got a couple of folks here who weren't quite as
bad as you. I'll let one of them go, but you have to take their place.
I'll even let you decide who leaves.&quot;

Clinton thought that sounded pretty good, so the devil opened the door to
the first room. In it was Ted Kennedy and large pool of water. He kept
diving in and surfacing empty-handed, over and over and over. Such was his
fate in hell.

&quot;No&quot;, Bill said. &quot;I don't think so, I'm not a good swimmer and I don't
think I could do that all day long.&quot;

The devil led him to the next room. In it was Newt Gingrich with a sledge
hammer and a room full of rocks. All he did was swing that hammer, time
after time after time. &quot;No, I've got this problem with my shoulder. I
would be in constant agony if all I could do was break rocks all day&quot;,
commented Bill.

The devil opened a third door. In it, Clinton saw Kenn Starr, lying on
the floor with his arms staked over his head and his legs staked in a spread
eagle pose. Bent over him was Monica L, doing what she does best.
Clinton looked at this in disbelief and finally said, &quot;Yeah, I can handlethis&quot;.

The devil smiled and said &quot;OK, Monica, you're free to go&quot;.
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
Jmman,

That's reasonable but I still would like to see Clinton held accountable.

What you're likely to see with this administration is a &quot;hard look&quot; at the problem. Nothing will change, however. There will be no constitutional amendments. You'll end up with advisory committees with lists of recommendations. Maybe Jr. George will make a few public promises about how he'll pledge not to abuse the pardon power as much as Clinton.

Nothing will be solved. The highest levels of government will continue to be a Private, Protected Clubhouse filled with Elites rubbing the backs of other Elites. After seeing this happen time and time again this is what I expect from either D or R party. :(