O'Reilly's Persistant Tantrums About Rand Paul Is Hurting Him With The Older Crowd

[sparebulb]

You realize that November is the general election? And that these people whose deaths you're so eager for will most likely vote Republican?

Nuanced sarcasm is not understood in the idiocracy.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

...keyboards needs a special key to describe Bill.

^^^he's that important

Perhaps the image of a monkey blowing itself.

 

[hells_unicorn]

That may be true. But the minute you start wishing that the people who disagree with you...you've crossed a big line. Especially when the individual in question has done nothing, except talk. This isn't some whacko liberal insane asylum, I expect more

Bill O'Reilly has used rhetoric on multiple occasions calling for the death of other people, sometimes in those very words. Furthermore, you can kill someone by proxy with words (the mob calls it "pushing the button on someone", and sometimes it can be done with a wordless gesture of the body). When a witness gives false testimony in court that results in an innocent person being executed, nothing is coming from that person but words.

Further still, I did not say I hoped for Bill O'Reilly to get killed by a bus, I stated that if it happened, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. My preference would be for Bill-O to change his mind, then start acting and speaking like a human being. However, given his age, stupidity and obstinate loyalty to a false view of things, I don't think that's ever going to happen.

 

[Cleaner44]

 

[r3volution 3.0]

^^^genius at work

 

[JK/SEA]

That may be true. But the minute you start wishing that the people who disagree with you



Or



you've crossed a big line. Especially when the individual in question has done nothing, except talk. This isn't some whacko liberal insane asylum, I expect more

will you go to o'reillys funeral if/when he dies?

yes...no..

thankyou.

 

[PCKY]

He was at it again tonight! He wrote off two candidates--Rand (first) and then Kasich. Rand for his FP in a world of ongoing terror and Kasich for being a compassionate centrist in a world of pissed off right wingers.
Then his first interview is with Trump who espoused the exact same FP that Rand does. The only thing I haven't heard Rand say is that he is fine with Putin taking out ISIS. So using O'Reilly's own logic for good instead of evil, Trump should also be relegated to the "thank you for playing in 2016...maybe next time" place with Rand and Kasich. He did not address FP with Trump at all!

W.....T....F!!!!!!!

 

[Crashland]

Rand really needs to fix this if he wants to get traction. He can't just keep letting these people mischaracterize his foreign policy. Don't let this issue go. The more he forces the issue the more time he will get to explain

 

[PCKY]

Rand really needs to fix this if he wants to get traction. He can't just keep letting these people mischaracterize his foreign policy. Don't let this issue go. The more he forces the issue the more time he will get to explain

O'Reilly uses this sanctimonious tone (like he is reporting facts), and does not say "Talking Points believes..." so he is issuing an edict. I actually said the four syllable F word out loud to the TV. Arrgggh!

 

[Badger Paul]

For Rand Paul to win (and I mean win in the long run) he has to basically has to destroy the Republican Party as it is constituted now and build it back up into something completely different. This is exactly what George McGovern did to the Democratic Party in 1972 but ultimately it paid off because the party is better positioned to where the country is from a Presidential majority standpoint than the GOP is. Barak Obama would have never been elected President if this did not happen.

Now I know some of you are going to panic and cry out "We've got to get the geezer vote!" My response is to say fuck them. The people who constitute much of the GOP vote right now and (subsequently Bill O'Reilly audience) are going to be dead in 20 years and then what? You have a completely changing nation on your hands and nothing can be now stop it. That chance came and went. The Democrats obviously benefit as a result. Yes, the Republican control a lot of states thanks to geezer votes in low turnout mid-terms and off-year elections but given the power of the Imperial Presidency that doesn't mean much. In time, those votes on the Presidential level will trickle down to the states, just as they did for Republicans after 12 years of GOP rule from 1981-1993. So what kind of party do you want to see opposite the Democrats, one which can compete with them in what the country will become or one that is shell of what it once was? The result in 20 years will not be pretty.

Rand and the Paul movement is a threat to a lot of people. But that's why I and many others like him, because he'll rip power away from those who don't deserve to have it anymore. Let's face it, it's about power and there's no compromise when it comes to that. But, one advantage Rand has McGovern did not is the fact the "base" or geezer vote really does have no place else to go because they have so demonized the Democrats that voting for a Democrat has become unfathomable. They might try to split the party with their own rump faction. I'd say more power to them. They would eventually shrink while Rand and Revolution still had control of the Republican brand which will prove more enduring than some rump neocon party.

Hell, I'd be willing to lose a 49-state landslide (which it wouldn't be) just to be opposite Hilary Clinton on the war question. Because as McGovern (and Barry Goldwater too in 1964) proved, sometimes the biggest losses can become the greatest victories over time. And time is on Rand's side.

 

[CPUd]

 

[PCKY]

For Rand Paul to win (and I mean win in the long run) he has to basically has to destroy the Republican Party as it is constituted now and build it back up into something completely different. This is exactly what George McGovern did to the Democratic Party in 1972 but ultimately it paid off because the party is better positioned to where the country is from a Presidential majority standpoint than the GOP is. Barak Obama would have never been elected President if this did not happen.

Now I know some of you are going to panic and cry out "We've got to get the geezer vote!" My response is to say fuck them. The people who constitute much of the GOP vote right now and (subsequently Bill O'Reilly audience) are going to be dead in 20 years and then what? You have a completely changing nation on your hands and nothing can be now stop it. That chance came and went. The Democrats obviously benefit as a result. Yes, the Republican control a lot of states thanks to geezer votes in low turnout mid-terms and off-year elections but given the power of the Imperial Presidency that doesn't mean much. In time, those votes on the Presidential level will trickle down to the states, just as they did for Republicans after 12 years of GOP rule from 1981-1993. So what kind of party do you want to see opposite the Democrats, one which can compete with them in what the country will become or one that is shell of what it once was? The result in 20 years will not be pretty.

Rand and the Paul movement is a threat to a lot of people. But that's why I and many others like him, because he'll rip power away from those who don't deserve to have it anymore. Let's face it, it's about power and there's no compromise when it comes to that. But, one advantage Rand has McGovern did not is the fact the "base" or geezer vote really does have no place else to go because they have so demonized the Democrats that voting for a Democrat has become unfathomable. They might try to split the party with their own rump faction. I'd say more power to them. They would eventually shrink while Rand and Revolution still had control of the Republican brand which will prove more enduring than some rump neocon party.

Hell, I'd be willing to lose a 49-state landslide (which it wouldn't be) just to be opposite Hilary Clinton on the war question. Because as McGovern (and Barry Goldwater too in 1964) proved, sometimes the biggest losses can become the greatest victories over time. And time is on Rand's side.

This makes a lot of sense.

 

[Brett85]

I disagree with Rand's support for Kate's law. I think it's a bad law.

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

Saying that you wish they die is also doing nothing more than talk.

I'm not saying that it's a good thing to say. But keep it in perspective.

I disagree that one should not say they wish for someone to die. Of course we can wish for that outcome and it's really not such an "evil" thought. EVERYONE dies. Sorry about that but it's coming your way like a freight train. We all have to deal with our mortality. O'Rieley has lived a reasonable long life. Much longer than many who were cut down in their youth. I for one do not see "death" as being such a terrible thing. I am getting close to mine and I don't fear that day. This goon lover has proved that he is an enemy of liberty and it's pretty unlikely that he could ever change so I will make the bold statement that I would like for his day of destiny to come soon so that liberty will have one less goon standing in the way. I would not DO anything to hasten his transition from this life to the next but that day will be a good day in my book... (call me insensitive, I don't care)

 

[LibertyEagle]

Maybe give some thought to whether what you are writing would hurt or help Rand if the media saw your post. I know we all can improve on this; me included. But, guys, wishing someone would die is certainly not something Rand would want associated with him in any way.

 

[jmdrake]

^This. Bill O'Reilly is on his way out. He finally jumped the shark. Mark Levin was unloading on Bill O'Reilly the other night. Attacking Ronald Reagan is the third rail of GOP politics. "Bill O'Reilly slanders Ronald Reagan." Put a fork in it. He's done.