O'Reilly Obama Staffer

[Memorize]

Look no further than Youtube.

Video #1 here is the full video. Without the fancy scene splicing ect ect.. That plays out the whole story on what happend.

Full Video from FOX

Video #2 is a user made video with editted and spliced scenes created by some outback-no one knows about-News organization.

Editted Video by other News

Now notice in these videos, the huge majority of slamming and bashing of FOX news. Take Video #2 (not FOX) with the spliced scenes: The people (who I would assume as liberals) take to YouTube and use this video to bash FOX.

Then take Video #1 from FOX that gives the WHOLE video in full. These same people still say the same thing and place their total trust in the editted video.

I find that very funny indeed.

But, on to the video. I wouldn't have personally believed the guy was purposefully blocking the shot until I saw the smile on the guy's face as he was being talked to, yelled at, and shoved. But that's just me.

[Imperator]

I stopped watching the second Billo decided to get physical.

And Bill has the balls to talk about "low class".....

How bout we talk about "Assault" Bill?

[Memorize]

At 1/9/08 04:13 PM, Imperator wrote: I stopped watching the second Billo decided to get physical.

After all the topics, the videos, the conversations.

You could take a video where he shoved the guy on the second time.

... I'm so tempted to pull out an insult right now.

[Memorize]

At 1/9/08 04:15 PM, Memorize wrote:

You could take a video where he shoved the guy on the second time.

Couldn't take a video*

[Absolutelynothing]

It's not like a movie they're filming, they're just getting what they can.
If they're going to stop that man from doing what he's doing just so the set can get their own way, then they're acting like they're the most important people there.

[Imperator]

At 1/9/08 04:15 PM, Memorize wrote: After all the topics, the videos, the conversations.

You could take a video where he shoved the guy on the second time.

... I'm so tempted to pull out an insult right now.

Go right ahead. I watched your first link, and that was it. Frankly, that's all I needed. Bill put his hands on the staffer and shoved him out of the way. That ends it. Physical altercation, use of violence by Bill. Any LEO will tell you there's where the line was crossed.

I notice in the Fox clip that there was ZERO diplomacy used before Bill decided to "defend" the constitution by committing an act of violence. One warning, and then SHOVE.

Bad form! Violence is not an option until ALL other non-violent alternatives have been exhausted.

If I were the staffer, I'd charge em with assault.

End story.

[Memorize]

At 1/9/08 04:22 PM, Imperator wrote:

Go right ahead. I watched your first link, and that was it. Frankly, that's all I needed. Bill put his hands on the staffer and shoved him out of the way. That ends it. Physical altercation, use of violence by Bill. Any LEO will tell you there's where the line was crossed.

The topic was also about those on YouTube.

The editted video, you'll get them saying anywhere along the lines of: "he did it for no reason"
On the full video, they'll say: "What a wuss".

Gotta love it.

End story.

You really are a wuss. You have your mind wrapped around an aura of prejudice before even watching the video, so of course you're going to say that.

Pitiful

[Imperator]

At 1/9/08 04:26 PM, Memorize wrote: The topic was also about those on YouTube.

It's friggin YOUTUBE dude. What were you expecting?

You really are a wuss. You have your mind wrapped around an aura of prejudice before even watching the video, so of course you're going to say that.

Pitiful

Why would I watch the video you've already said was biased and stupid? I watched the first one, saw Bill shove the guy, what else do you want?

What "prejudice"? I'm using FOX's video, the WHOLE video, without the tricks and fluff, "that plays the whole story one what happened". I couldn't give two shits about what youtube comments say about Fox or Bill. And I don't care if he was blocking the camera or not.

I saw Fox's version, saw Bill push him, and heard everything from BILL'S perspective. He's a jackass, and committed assault.

Meanwhile you're sitting here saying the youtube comments are assumed to be liberals, but I'M the one whose prejudiced? For what? Not watching the video you already said was biased? So I'm prejudiced for not watching a liberally biased video?

I'm not even sure what straw you're supposed to be grasping here......

[Memorize]

At 1/9/08 04:49 PM, Imperator wrote:

Why would I watch the video you've already said was biased and stupid? I watched the first one, saw Bill shove the guy, what else do you want?

Heh, I thought you might make a long-winded speech afterwards.

Acting like it wouldn't even phase you if I pulled out "wuss", but I guess it did.

Ciao.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 1/9/08 04:19 PM, Absolutelynothing wrote: It's not like a movie they're filming, they're just getting what they can.
If they're going to stop that man from doing what he's doing just so the set can get their own way, then they're acting like they're the most important people there.

That's like me telling you that it's not 'important' for you to see what is going on at a movie or a concert because i am standing infront of you, blocking your veiw.

Look at the first video AGAIN and notice that the man blocking the camera had a big grin on his face when he turned to Bill after bill told him to stop getting in his way. Now, if someone tells you that you are doing something wrong on purpose and you are not, a typical response would be that of anger; the fact that this man had a big smile on his face meant he WAS doing it on purpose. Also, remember bill kept saying to the man 'you are blocking the camera' If it was infact a mistake, a typicall response would either be an apology or possibly 'Geeze don't get so angry' and then a compliance. He did neither, and in an 'honest mistake' scenario REALLY doesn't have an incentive to put up his dukes with Bill simply because bill told him to stop blocking the camera.

I am sorry; but i don't see how you can argue that

1) It was necessary / a right for the man to move left and right to block the camera. I've already established that the man CLEARLY was doing it on purpose. [You can't possibly tell me that there is no alibi to do that.] It's like me saying i have a right to block your view of a movie deliberately.
2) Bill just ran into a crowd with a camera and had his bouncers kick anyone who was in view of the camera, it was already established in the beginning that Bill had a clear shot of obama; then the man moved into veiw; so the camera moved, then the man moved towards the camera. [See above details as to why this was pointless if done out of innocence]
3) With point number 1 in place, you really have no grounds to say 'Fox news has no higher claim to watch something than another man' Because as explained in #2, it wasn't a 'This town aint big enough for the 2 of us' scenario; the man was clearly doing it out of smug.
4) Finally, and this is the weakest argument in my opinion, but serves it's purpose with 1, 2, and 3; I don't see how you can argue that a national television station [With Several viewers watching a single video] should be placed second to a single individual. [An individual who as i tried to prove in previous points was doing the act on purpose]
5) I don't think Bill was implying that this man was working for Obama, 'obama guy' probably means a rogue obama supporter, SINCE Obama did have that man removed [By his orders as bill explains] i beleive. Obama's not stupid.

How to prove me wrong;

1) Prove Bill forced his way into the crowd and pushed people who got in his way without any sort of provocation
2) Prove the man who got in the way wasn't doing it on purpose and would have left if bill asked him politely.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

The guy blocking the shot was obviously being a jackass, and whilst I have sympathy of O'reilly ( not something I thought I'd ever say ) he did over react some what. Laying hands on the guy was a bit risky, could have quite easily been interpreted as physical assault and all that malarkey.

Not saying he should be charged with anything, quite honestly, if they were to try and charge him I'd bang my head in frustration as it would just be a waste of time and money, but I think he did over react. I can see why he acted as he did, but that doesn't mean it's the correct response to make.

[SmilezRoyale]

I also beleive Bill was a little too quick to pull the attack trigger; Noticing that the man blocking the camera was being smug i don't think that he would have moved if Bill had continued asking him with words. However, it would have worked better for bill to say 'You are blocking the Camera please move out of the way', trying to get his attention and telling him up front that he needs to stop blocking the camera by moving in the camera's way.

The actual happening makes the watcher question whether or not the man who bill 'attacked' knew quick enough what he was doing was wrong. If bill made it obvious through getting his attention he was a jackass, less people would be against the fact that he used forced to keep the person from blocking the camera.

He DID block the camera; and probably deliberately from what i saw; but not for long enough to make it look justified for Bill to move him by force.

[Bluemidgetguy]

I hate/love Bill O'reilly

just like I hate and love his dick