Watch Live: Congressional Hearing on IRS Scandal

Live BlazeCast at 2pm ET: All the fireworks from the IRS Hearing!

Media

Bill O’Reilly Explodes on Columnist Who He Says Called Him a ‘Homophobe’

Mar. 13, 2013 9:31pm Jason Howerton

Bill OReilly Explodes on Columnist Who Called Him a Homophobe

(Fox News)

Fox News host Bill O’Reilly on Wednesday engaged in a heated debate with Denver Post editorial page editor Curtis Hubbard over a recent column, written by Hubbard, which the Fox News personality says accuses him of being a “homophobe.”

The column, which O’Reilly referred to as “libelous speculation,” came after O’Reilly brought up the fact that Colorado House Speaker Mark Ferrandino is openly gay while arguing in favor of “Jessica’s Law,” a proposed law designed to give mandatory minimum sentences to child sex offenders.

“O’Reilly’s fear-mongering should offend all Coloradans. He was saying ‘gay,’ but what he wanted his listeners to hear was ‘pervert-pedophile,’” the column reads.

After delving into the Denver Post column, O’Reilly called Hubbard a “charlatan” and a “smear merchant” who is misleading readers.

“You don’t know anything, and all you can do is smear,” O’Reilly told Hubbard. “You don’t know anything about Jessica’s Law.”

Hubbard then argued that the concept behind Jessica’s Law, mandatory minimum sentences, results in “unintended consequences” and said Colorado already has strong offender laws.

Watch the video via Fox News below:

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (159)

spirited
Posted on March 14, 2013 at 12:24am
Curtis Hubbard denied knowldge of Jessica’s Law.

~>Then later he contra-dick-ted himself.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- mtncougar
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 1:48am
  Re: Horseman43
  
  “the vast majority of homosexuals are pedophiles”
  
  Seriously, sometimes I’m embarrassed to be a conservative. This kind of crap lies has been spread about homosexuals since I’ve been alive. NO ONE is arguing this point?
  
  Report this comment
- Native54
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 2:15am
  @mtncougar
  
  Actually, per capita in the smaller homosexual community, there are more pedophile incidents.
  
  “Homosexual activists routinely claim that most child molesters are ‘heterosexual’ males, thus shifting the focus away from their own very high rates of molestation. Since 98-99% of the population is heterosexual, it is technically correct to say that most molestations are done by heterosexuals. However, statistics indicate that homosexuals pose a far more serious threat to children than do heterosexuals…
  
  For example: In 1987… a ten-state study of sex abuse cases involving school teachers [found that] 32 percent of those child molestation cases involved homosexuals. Nearly a third of these cases come from only 1-2% of the population.”
  Timothy J. Dailey, PhD
  
  “Not all gays molest adolescent males. But (next to) all adolescents molested were males. Therefore, it is a homosexual issue. It is also not really pedophilia, but rather the quite common homosexual desire for young men taken to a more extreme level (not illegal in most EU countries though, where the age of consent is usually 14, sometimes 12). Youth is the most important draw in the gay community.
  Gerald Naus, who blogs under the name Gerald Augustinus
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 2:31am
  Native:
  
  Per capita, straight males rape more than any other group. Should we therefore ban straight men from scouts because we want to protect our families and instill good values among our youth?
  
  Besides, your statistics and arguments here are plain false. Where did you see that homosexuals are 1-2% of the population? Did you count them all yourself? No study can adequately show this percentage because you have to tell someone you are gay, and thanks to ignorance like what is found on this site, plenty still do not want to. Also, why do you think that all gays were molested as children? I am gay and I was never molested, and no gay person I know was ever molested either. I bet I know more gay people than you do. And most importantly, there is a big difference between homosexuality, heterosexuality and pedophilia. If you are male and attracted to men, you are gay, if you are attracted to women you are straight, if you are attracted to children you are a pedophile. Plenty of supposedly straight men, married to women, and with biological children have molested boys. There is no more connection between homosexual and pedophile than between heterosexual and pedophile.
  
  Report this comment
- SquidVetOhio
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 8:11am
  OH SNAP MTNCOUGAR! You just got destroyed by facts! How did that feel? It sure looked painful.
  
  If you’re ashamed of being conservative, there’s always the other side. Buh bye…..
  
  Report this comment
- spackard90
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 12:59pm
  To HARRYPOTTER,
  
  You are correct that the majority of child molestation incidents are perpetrated by heterosexuals, however, there are also vastly more heterosexuals than there are homosexuals in the US, so this is not surprising. Here, we are comparing the percentage of homosexuals in the population, to the percentage of homosexuals who are involved in child molestation cases. Whether deliberately or accidentally, you are completely missing the point NATIVE54 is making by citing Timothy Dailey. Now, it is completely wrong, and frankly abhorrent to say that “the vast majority of homosexuals are pedophiles”. But that is not what NATIVE56 was saying. His point was, according to the study cited, among others, homosexuals represent a higher percentage of involvement in child molestation cases (32%), than they do in the US population (2%). The overrepresentation of homosexuals involved in these cases deserves attention, and should not be side-stepped by attempting to assert, as you did, that if a man molests a boy (Not having reached the age of legal consent), he is a child molester, not a homosexual. The truth is, he is both, as he is engaging in both homosexual, and pedophiliac behaviors; thus making him a homosexual child molester.
  
  Typical of most homosexual and liberal activists, you attempt to discount the well-recorded percentages of self-identifying gays, lesbians and bisexuals in America; and why wouldn’t you? It illustrates exactly how minor a social group homose
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 1:35pm
  Spackard:
  
  Did you even read my post? You didn’t make any mention of what I said, you only repeated the false arguments that were made earlier. Allow me to reiterate. Straight men constitute a minority of the population, but are responsible for nearly all rape cases reported. That is a huge over-representation. Should we therefore not allow our children around any straight men? Even if the straight men don’t rape the children, they are clearly setting a bad example.
  
  As for your statistics, first, you cannot claim to know how may homosexuals there are. You have to tell someone you are gay, and thanks to the ignorance and bigotry like what is found on this site, many still refuse to do that. Second, did your numbers refer to self-identifying homosexuals as you claim? Or do they merely show the number of boys molested verses girls molested? Straight men, bisexual men, and even women can all molest boys. And plenty of pedophiles find both male and female targets. Attraction to an adult is very different to attraction to children, so please stop trying to connect the two.
  
  Report this comment
- spackard90
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 2:14pm
  It appears my last paragraph was cut off: Typical of most homosexual and liberal activists, you attempt to discount the well-recorded percentages of self-identifying gays, lesbians and bisexuals in America; and why wouldn’t you? It illustrates exactly how minor a social group homosexuals really are. I know you would likely argue that homosexuals represent about 10% or more of the US population, citing the highly-disputed and controversial Kinsey Reports, released some 60 years ago, and that the reason these more recent reports are so low is due to prevailing, negative societal attitudes toward homosexuals. However, I am sure you are aware, though you may not want to admit, that the societal attitudes toward homosexuals are vastly better than they ever have been in American history, particularly after the Stonewall riots of 1969; with the majority of people showing strong support for homosexual people. So, this whole idea that drastically fewer homosexuals are self-identifying as homosexual due to negative societal attitudes, in our current day and age, seems a bit outdated to me, especially since self-identifying as homosexual does not equate with being “out”. The fact is, the overwhelming majority of studies done on the subject consistently show homosexual percentages of the US population around 2%, with the most generous results at about 3.5%. You can ignore or attempt to discount these figures as you wish; but despite how much you may not like them, the numbers don’t l
  
  Report this comment
- spackard90
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 2:20pm
  “Straight men constitute a minority of the population”… When compared to what? Homosexual men? Heterosexual women? Please clarify. Additionally, are you really attempting to assert that a straight man remains classified as “straight” after molesting a male child? Really? So the definition of “homosexual” is no longer “someone that engages in sexual activity with a member of their same sex”? Give me a break…
  
  Report this comment
- Skearit
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 3:07pm
  @squid and harry, references please. You’re claiming “facts” but you’re not backing them up with ANYTHING. So we’re automatically discounting everything you say as typical liberal vomit. At least cite something, even if it’s a horribly flawed biased junk study. Otherwise we just assume you’re making it all up.
  
  Report this comment
- horseman43
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 3:48pm
  HarryPotter
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 1:35pm
  Spackard:
  
  “Did you even read my post? You didn’t make any mention of what I said, you only repeated the false arguments that were made earlier. ”
  
  I didn’t read your post either, just down to the above quote, and the reason for it is because you’re screwy, and you say nutty things that don’t make sense. You’re obviously a homosexual activist who comes on here, pretending facts aren’t facts and you draw invalid parallels to one thing and another that has no logical comparison, and one example is trying to inanely convince people here that heterosexual males having sex with female children is the same as homosexuals wanting to have sex with male children.
  
  As our new Pope wrote: “Same sex marriage is the machination of the Father of Lies.”
  
  And you are one of his spokesmen.
  
  Report this comment
- horseman43
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 4:00pm
  mtncougar
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 1:48am
  Re: Horseman43
  “the vast majority of homosexuals are pedophiles”
  
  :Seriously, sometimes I’m embarrassed to be a conservative.”
  
  Actually, you shouldn’t be embarrassed to be a conservative you should be embarrassed to be so shallow you feel as if someone else’s remarks reflect badly on you, especially since you exhibit a total lack of knowledge in the field of perversions.
  
  “This kind of crap lies has been spread about homosexuals since I’ve been alive. ”
  
  And you’re still in denial about it?
  
  Methinks thou dost protest too much. The comment wouldn’t bother a normal straight person.
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 4:45pm
  Spackard:
  
  I would not assign any percentage to homosexuals in the general population because you cannot know the truth, as I have said above. ALL estimates are pure guesses and cannot be proven. And straight men are a minority because straight women, gay women and gay men together hold much more of the population. And yes, a man who is attracted to women can still abuse a boy. Or, he could be attracted to men and women. Or he could be claiming to be straight, and hiding his pedophile inclinations to access children. This is why we need to watch all adults who are around children, and not focus irrationally on gays.
  
  Skearit:
  
  What would you like cited? And also, please cute references to prove how allowing gay marriage would affect straight couples at all.
  
  Horseman:
  
  You clearly are delusional. And quite probably trying to mask and repress your own latent homosexuality. If you had any facts or logic to support your claims, I might be inclined to listen to you. But you are just spouting ignorance and bigotry at the moment.
  
  Report this comment
- horseman43
  Posted on March 15, 2013 at 5:24pm
  Harrypotter
  Horseman:
  “You clearly are delusional. And quite probably trying to mask and repress your own latent homosexuality. ”
  
  Do you have any facts or logic to support your own claims or do you feel as if your assertions are proof enough, but you require everyone else to give irrefutable examples?
  
  “If you had any facts or logic to support your claims, I might be inclined to listen to you. But you are just spouting ignorance and bigotry at the moment.”
  
  Really?
  
  You mean as you do?
  
  When a matter is common knowledge no examples or proof is necessary.
  
  But I can cite many examples. However, you won’t even intelligently address the issues I’ve raised, preferring instead to expect people to believe your uneducated word is all that is necessary to prove your point.
  
  You harm little children, and millions of us resent you deeply for it. You are a disciple of the Father of Lies, just as Pope Francis described you. And the people who do not condemn you for it are complicit in the spread of your evil.
  
  What goes around comes around.
  
  Report this comment
media-bias-steals-elections
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 11:57pm
Bill will stop short of calling gay marriage a violation of the civil rights of the Church, because a state can not make any law regarding an establishment of religion, that’s too scary to give that a name?

Civil-rights-a-phobe? Bill-of-rights-phobia? We can’t allow an establishment of religion, marriage, to have civil rights and protect them from redefinition by the state? I don’t listen to his show very often, but I would love to hear his view on that?

It’s kind of like when somebody gives you a mental “wellness test”, and tells you there are no wrong answers, but the designers of these tests don’t stop to think, if there are people smart enough to pass the tests, there are people smart enough to fail the tests on purpose, which means not libel, but defamation of character law suits against government agencies, insurance companies, and employers that use these mindless, “zombie diaster test tools” that you could never explain to a jury anyway?

And if you make them exempt from law suits, you basically say they are not worth the paper they are printed on to begin with?

Elementary my dear Watson, elementary?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 12:09am
  How is allowing gay marriage a violation of the church’s civil rights? Are churches being denied anything? Are they being forced to change their own ceremonies, rites, doctrine or definitions? Of course not. But by not allowing gay marriage, gay people are being denied equal treatment under the law and the same rights and benefits straight people get through these unions. I think it is clear where the real civil rights violation lies.
  
  Report this comment
- Independent4233
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 12:38am
  HarryPotter
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 12:09am
  “But by not allowing gay marriage, gay people are being denied equal treatment under the law and the same rights and benefits straight people get through these unions. I think it is clear where the real civil rights violation lies.”
  
  Refusal to consider perversions on the same basis as heterosexuality has nothing to do with rights considered under equal protection of the law whether it involves homosexuality, bestiality or another form of mental illness and/or drug addiction or alcoholism, which are all closely related psychologically.
  
  Your best bet is to try to get cured instead of whining about rights for a group of people who are addicts of one sort or another or who engage in perversions.
  
  If you choose to refuse treatment, it’s not up to the rest of society to give you special privileges no more than it is for society to give special consideration to alcoholics or cocaine addicts or people who abuse children or little animals.
  
  As Pope Francis wrote, “Same-sex marriage is the machination of the Father of Lies.”
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 12:49am
  Independent:
  
  You’re absolutely right. The way you consider the distinctions between homosexuals and heterosexuals has no relevance to civil rights whatsoever. But when the government denies gay people rights and benefits that it affords to straight people, then we do have a civil rights issue. We are not asking for “special privileges” we are asking for equality. No one cares what you personally think about gay people.
  
  Report this comment
- EllieR
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 2:28am
  HarryPotter, to normal people (please stop referring to us as straight) posting on this site, marriage is much more than a marriage license and benefits. I absolutely don’t mind your civil unions and whatever benefits you want bestowed on you and your partner. Have it all. Just don’t call it marriage please. Is it too much to ask?
  
  You could not care less what we think, you said as much, so why are you here then? To tell us how little you care about our opinions? Well, thank you. Have a pleasant day.
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 2:47am
  Ellier:
  
  First of all, how do you define normal? I personally don’t think such a thing exists, it is just an abstract idea to which some people strive and some people abhor. But if you’d like, I can also use the more technical term of heterosexual.
  
  I appreciate that you want us to have equal rights and benefits, but we have tried civil unions. In the states where civil unions are legal (29 I think) they are still not afforded the same rights and benefits as married couples. Plus, these are not recognized by the federal government. It seems to me that you are most upset about the use of what is in your mind, a religious term being applied to a gay couple. Is it also no upsetting to see this term applied to one of those celebrity marriages which are clearly just for publicity and last mere weeks? How is a loving gay union less fit for the term marriage than these?
  
  There are two types of marriages in the US today, legal and religious. You go to a church and have a ceremony for the religious one, and sign the paperwork for the legal one. If you recognize this distinction, you will see that religious marriage is not actually being touched at all. But marriage is also a legal term, and must be applied equally to all couples under the law.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 2:52am
  Historical trivia the founders must of had a different take on seperation of church and state or some had non-religious arguments against homosexuality, as it could get you court martialed under Washington (including death) within the army.
  
  Jefferson was a little bit more forgiving and merciful he drafted a law in Virginia that castration was the preferred method of punishment.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 2:57am
  For clarification, Jefferson’s law wasn’t passed and Virginian went with death for sodomy.
  
  Report this comment
- Native54
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 3:07am
  @HarryPotter and @Independent
  
  Your premise of civil rights would be correct, and I would be on your side, if homosexuality were an innate, immutable characteristic. Similar to the immutability of race. … But honey! There are many multitudes of former LGBTQ. I know of NO former racial types. We are talking about a “SEXUAL BEHAVIOR” here. Not an innate characteristic that is unchangeable. If that were the case, there would not be one case of a former LGBTQ. So lets see some examples of those “FORMER” lgbtqs.
  
  Youtube is full of testimonies of former LGBTQs…
  
  http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=former+homosexual+testimony&oq=former+****&gs_l=youtube.1.0.0l3.23963.27753.0.30394.11.9.0.2.2.0.108.829.5j4.9.0…0.0…1ac.1.X_aC9rybIP0
  
  Demolishing the idea that ‘there’s no such thing as an ex gay’
  http://treesforlunch.blogspot.com/2011/12/demolishing-idea-that-theres-no-such.html
  
  Our Stories
  A Teenage Homosexual
  A Fake Woman
  David Pickup
  Debora Barr
  To My Fellow Ex-gay Men and Women
  Keep the Faith
  Dawn Wilde: Confessions of a Recovering Lesbian
  Greg Quinlan’s Story
  A former lesbian thanks AFA American Family Association
  A former transgender
  Angry at Dad
  Dave’s Testimony: Beloved-A Journey From Rejection To Acceptance
  Diary of an Ex-Gay Man
  (TO READ MANY MORE)….
  http://pfox.org/stories.html
  
  Report this comment
- ferggie
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 8:27am
  It is NOT a case of inequality or civil rights:
  1) Straight man can’t marry a straight man or a gay man. Can marry straight woman or gay woman
  2) Gay man can’t marry a gay man or straight man. Can marry straight woman or gay woman
  3) Straight woman can’t marry a straight woman or a gay woman. Can marry straight man or gay man.
  4) Gay woman can’t marry a gay woman or straight woman. Can marry straight man or gay man.
  
  As you can see both have the exact same rights. FACT
  
  Report this comment
- sammythebu11
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 9:49am
  Harrypotter, let me define normal for you, the way NATURE DEFINED IT!!!!, it’s not NATURAL for two men or two women to have sex, PERIOD.
  you can do with your life whatever works for you, but do NOT force us to accept your way as we are not forcing you to accept yours. If we believe that normal is between a man and a woman, you are nobody to force me to accept your beliefs.
  
  Report this comment
- Classical_Liberal
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 11:51am
  sammythebu11 You’re exactly right. As it stands now there is not a federal endorsement of this behavior or lifestyle. Give them enough time and brainwashing via social media and guilt tripping and you’ll see just how devastating this will be for freedom of conscience. They have to make it legal on a federal level so that they can shove it down your throat!
  
  Report this comment
- EllieR
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 1:34pm
  Harrypotter, if you want the definition of normal, look no further than dictionary.
  Normal — conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected. Homosexuality is abnormal by definition. It is as abnormal among humans as it is among animals because no species can survive without procreation. Aberrant behavior leads to degradation and extinction.
  
  Also, will you please specify what benefits you are missing, and why you imply that homosexual don’t want to be married in church. Many do. Do you think it is okay?
  
  On the subject of pedohilia, do you deny that your mainstream “press” promotes sex with children, claiming that children have natural sexuality? Tell us about NAMBLA please. Do you deny that your newspapers published ads for “penetrable boy dolls?”
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 1:50pm
  Native:
  
  Um, actually your sexuality is an innate characteristic. The problem is you can lie about it. The cases you posted were quite clearly mostly false testimony from people who had never claimed to be gay, and the few cases where someone actually has claimed to be an “ex-gay” are examples of being pressured by loved ones and made to feel an abundance of guilt. There have been examples too of “ex-gays” who have been caught with a same-sex lover or prostitute. This is what the repressive concept of reforming gays leads to. If you truly believe that sexuality is something that you can choose, prove it! Choose to be gay for a day. Spend 24 hours attracted to your own gender. If you can’t do this, what makes you think we can change?
  
  Ferggie:
  
  What good is being able to marry a person you are unable to love? If this is equality, then why don’t we change it up, and have all marriages be between same-sex couples. Then all men would have the right to marry another man, and all women would have the right to marry another woman. Equality!
  
  Sammy:
  
  And how did nature define normal? By the 1500 animals that exhibit gay mating and behavior? By the fact that humanity has been having sex in this manner since before records began? And by the way, no one is forcing you to believe anything, but until we get equal rights and benefits, we are being forced onto the belief that straight marriage is somehow better.
  
  Report this comment
- spackard90
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 2:36pm
  Com on POTTER, are you really gonna argue that people cannot change their sexual preferences? This is absurdity. Of course they can! A sexual preference is not innate. It is a choice. I know several people who, in college, considered themselves to be homosexual, decided they didn’t like that lifestyle, and changed it, two of which are now happily married (Meaning, to a woman…). So don’t give me this crap that you cannot change who you are. People change every day. Furthermore, if same sex marriage is an equal rights issue, that is justified upon legal grounds, how do you justify treating a relationship between a man and women the same as a relationship between a man and man, or woman and woman? Is a heterosexual relationship exactly the same as a homosexual relationship? Is there really no difference between men and women? Let’s think about this carefully…
  
  Report this comment
- Independent4233
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 4:19pm
  HarryPotter
  Independent:
  
  “You’re absolutely right. The way you consider the distinctions between homosexuals and heterosexuals has no relevance to civil rights whatsoever. But when the government denies gay people rights and benefits that it affords to straight people, then we do have a civil rights issue.”
  
  Only if those rights involve something that doesn’t involve homosexuality, drug addiction, alcoholism, bestiality or the like.
  
  If a sick person wants to marry his cow and obtain the same legal protection as men and women who marry each other, he is into an area that has nothing to do with civil rights or equal protection under the laws of the land or the constitution as a part of his mental disorder.
  
  We are not asking for “special privileges” we are asking for equality.”
  
  No, you aren’t asking for special privileges, you’re demanding them, and it will do you no good because you won’t get them.
  
  “No one cares what you personally think about gay people.”
  
  You do.
  
  That’s why you addressed my comments.
  
  Your entire efforts have nothing to do with equality and EVERYTHING To do with being accepted.
  
  You want to FORCE people to accept you as “normal,” instead of seeking help for your disability.
  
  Report this comment
ltb
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 11:39pm
Oh… so after reading the article, I now realize that O’Reilly didn’t literally explode because of something like spontaneous human combustion, he figuratively exploded because he was so angry. It would have been much more interesting if he had actually exploded on camera.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
FB247
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 11:20pm
Hubbard’s a Heterophobe

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Nabuquduriuzhur
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 11:16pm
I am very glad to see Bill O’reilly finally getting some anger at evil.

From the 1960s until now, we’ve had a succession of groups that hurt other people, attack other people, and then claim to be “victims.” From communists to today’s homosexuals.

I use the term “nymfitses” (plural, or “nymfits” for singular) for such victimizers of other people because it’s Greek for weasel, an animal that viciously attacks other animals that it deems weaker than itself and because of it’s reputation in popular culture for duplicity.

I wrote this about such people in National Wave of Foolishness: “All too many people get called a name by an evil person and they fold flat like an napkin. Most of our Republican elected officials don’t have any guts in this respect. They get a little heat put on them by interest groups or the opposition party or parties and they just wilt like an unwatered lettuce and give in.

Why do you think the various hate-filled groups have started using slander on Conservatives like “bigot, racist, sexist, hater, homophobe, luddite, anti-environment, big business slave, baby-killer and so on?”

It works!

The Conservatives cave in and give them what the want. How many times do they do exactly what the evil-doers want, just to “prove” that the slander or libel is not true? They are afraid of what they will look like if they don’t. Then of course, they are castigated and rightly so, for being wishy-washy or not true to their principles.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Anonymous T. Irrelevant
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 11:47pm
  Exactly, they have no spine, trying to please all of the people, all of the time, no matter if they voted for them, or not. They will not do what WE ask of them, because they are afraid it will make them look bad.
  Meanwhile, they go back to their precincts and campaign, claiming they are “fighting” Obama and his agenda, and asking for more donations.
  If these people expect to get donations, they had better get off their A$$es and do what we SENT them there to do, and that is to STOP Zero at every turn.
  If conservatives do not win the Senate in 2014, we are done for. There’s nothing else we can do, because Congress is SURELY not going to do anything. If they were, they would have done it by now.
  If conservatives do not win in 2014, Zero is going to kick it into over-drive, scorched earth, riots, famine, gun-battles, you name it.
  We need people who will do hat NEEDS to be done, no matter what the opposition thinks, no matter what the media thinks. They don’t have to explain following the Constitution to anyone.
  
  Report this comment
Yes_I_Am_Leslie_Winkle
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 11:10pm
The men with the white coats and too long sleeves are coming for Bill..the man is a boring nut..still like his show but not him..but the point he made in this case was good, he just needs to knock off the dramatics, he’s turning people off..at least I can write this..if I were face to face with him he would have rudely interupted me before the first sentence and never would have let me finish
Log in to Reply Reply
marine249
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 10:55pm
them

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
marine249
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 10:54pm
Why do you persist to post?
When no one give a ding about the.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
justangry
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 10:46pm
Blaze is sure giving this lefty R a lot of press lately.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
harleyman
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 10:39pm
It’s pathetic these Liberals are taking over Colorado as they have too many other states. Liberalism is not only a mental disorder but a malignant Cancer, and just like Cancer it’s killing the host, our country. We better find a way to destroy this Cancer before it’s too late.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Diane TX
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 10:35pm
Denver, Colorado is a cesspool of mentally ill, sexual deviants. Children are not safe to be anywhere near that City.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 10:53pm
  Too bad we have children running the State right now, If we could only get their parents to spank them.
  
  Report this comment
- El Mac
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 11:34pm
  You are right. Unfortunately the evil and vile filth of that city and its sister in crime, Boulder, are now making the laws here….and forcing us to live with them at the barrel of a gun.
  
  The urban vs everyone else….
  
  Report this comment
- Zipit
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 8:51am
  Unfortunately TX, and what get me the most, is the people like SENDTHEMETEORS, that will say, and do anything it takes to defend and protect a system that supports this evil. Just stop out on W. Colfax Ave, tomorrow night, roll down your window, and ask her!!!!
  
  Report this comment
The-Monk
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 10:27pm
Hey RJJ,

It’s ready, short but ready.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SwNXQMoNps

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- carbonyes
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 8:28am
  Too bad “O” did not get a few of those messages.
  
  Report this comment
- carbonyes
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 8:42am
  ****’s are going to get their’s, if not in this world, then in the next. Spelled out quite clearly in the Bible. Repent, or take the elevator down. That elevator doesn’t go up, and you won’t like the air temp when you arrive and it’s for eternity. Live your hellish perverted life here; eternal damnation is your next stop.
  
  Report this comment
kalli
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 10:23pm
Good to see someone call out the Denver Post. I stopped their leftwing rag from being tossed on my driveway right after the Rep. Convention in 2008. They gloated all over the demon-in-chief, greek columns and all, for almost a full front page, and barely gave a 1/4 page below the crease to the Rep. convention. No doubt in my mind that Colorado has been californicated and quickly falling to a NY state of mind. May God help us get back to a sane society before the demoncRats completely destroy this nation.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Verceofreason
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 10:23pm
Reilly is so full of it, It’s pathetic.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Eastinfection
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 10:31pm
  “full of it” implies that he was lying.
  What part was he lying about?
  
  Report this comment
- Patriot72
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 10:38pm
  And your great leader Obama is a beacon of truth and responsibility? Don’t think so.
  
  Report this comment
- Verceofreason
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 4:07am
  That one pervert is protecting other perverts.
  
  THAT was his meaning in a nutshell.
  He’s hardly subtle,
  What don’t you get.
  
  Report this comment
- Eastinfection
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 7:31am
  He didn’t say that.
  C’mon. What was the lie?
  
  Quote him lying please.
  
  Report this comment
- spirited
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 12:00pm
  Yes, quote.
  
  >Get back to the point: Jessica’s Law protects other children from known phedophiles.
  
  Report this comment
aproudinfidel
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 10:23pm
I wish liberals would stop using the term homophobe so often. I don’t like homosexuals, but I am not scared of homosexuals. I doubt if O’Reilly is afraid of homosexuals either. I know, I know, homosexuals don’t like to be called homosexuals…they like being gay. If they’re so happy why do they whine so much?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- kalli
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 10:33pm
  Amen. This state has totally been californicated signing into law gay rights to marry and be able to smoke marijuana at the reception. Also, it seems that the people who complain about others being homophobe are probably homosexuals themselves. Nobody else would give a hoot.
  
  Report this comment
firman
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 10:03pm
A judge gave a child rapist 2 yrs. and probation? Wow. But if the kids father shot the fargin icehole he probly would get 15-20. Great system Colorado. I won’t be visiting anytime soon.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 10:28pm
  Thank you for not visiting.
  
  Report this comment
- Zipit
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 8:43am
  Bastage!
  
  Report this comment
rickg62
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 10:02pm
Any insights whether this idiot is gay? To be against Jessica’s law, would require their version to be totally useless. I lived in the same part of Florida where the crime tat produced this law took place. To imagine that that piece of human garbage, John Couey could ever be subject to anywhere near Colorado’s sentencing guidelines would be an abomination. This idiot editor is perfectly satisfied that in the case that O’Reilly mentioned the perpetrator got lifetime probation. What good id that? The prisons are full of people that were on probation when they committed another crime and were sent back.To be willing to gamble the safety of the children of Colorado on the concept of probation shows how intellectually and morally bankrupt this fraud is.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
TopAssistant
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 10:00pm
Curtis Hubbard should be ashamed of himself for his failure to know about this bill. Folks need to go to Communist Goals 1963 – Congressional Record and look at the listed #45 goals, especially #26 to see where we are headed. #26) Present homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as “normal, natural, and healthy.”

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Al J Zira
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 12:08am
  I read your post along with the communist manifesto and it sounds like the democratic platform. What’s even scarier is the fact that they’re all in on it. Which is why we need to label politicians as progressives and conservatives. Progressives are progressing along to communism. Conservatives are losing the battle.
  
  Report this comment
OldSurfRat
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 9:50pm
Love the video picture. BULLSEYE!!!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Eastinfection
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 9:50pm
O
O
O
O’rielly’s…

Audio Parts.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
TASS50
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 9:43pm
The ratings aren’t dipping

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DagneyT
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 9:53pm
  The Denver Post’s readership has been dipping, though, and this is not helping. I am a Colorado native, and I do not recognize my birth state anymore!
  
  Report this comment
- Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 10:40pm
  I used to get the best paper, the Rocky Mountain News, but alas, they went out of business, and merged with the Post. The owners said the Post would be a balanced paper (the News was a conservative/balanced paper) that lasted about a year. The post has slowly fired all the News’ writers and editors, now all it is is a Western version of the New York Slime. Even the Broncos coverage sucks, The News was much better.
  
  Report this comment
jp2feminist
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 9:41pm
Wow. Liberals, more than anything else, are scary dudes.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 9:39pm
Good for Bill. As I live in Colorado, I am glad to see FOX kickin’ the libs around. They have it comin’ and I do my share on my radio shows. But always nice to have the ‘big dogs’ taking these slime bags to task. Keep it up, Bill O!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DEFCON4
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 10:05pm
  Hey Tron,
  Sorry to hear that Colorado is being over run by liberal ‘gun-o-phobiacs’.
  It’s good to know that Mr. O’reilly is a tenacious advocate for Jessica’s law.
  -don’t forget it’s not the size of ‘the dog’ in the fight-
  Thanks, Tron for spreading the ‘good word’…….
  
  Report this comment
BlackCrow
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 9:39pm
I don’t like asparagus, That does not mean I have an irrational fear of it. By the same token I dislike Homosexuals and Muslims. Dose not mean I am afraid of them rationally or irrationally. Quit abusing the language/

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
KidCharlemagne
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 9:36pm
You can always tell when O’Reilly’s ratings are dipping…..

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- OldSurfRat
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 9:49pm
  Kid Charlatan
  
  Glad your keeping up with the real news. Keep it up.
  I have faith in your conversion.
  
  Report this comment
- RLTW
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 9:51pm
  Lol, yeah he rediscovers some principles and mixes in lots of indignation.
  
  Report this comment
- Verceofreason
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 10:31pm
  He made a complete azz of himself
  But his 3 viewers eat it up.
  
  Report this comment
- Eastinfection
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 10:56pm
  3 viewers? …Unless you’re making uninformed comments, Verce, YOU watched it.
  
  That would make YOU 1 of those 3 viewers.
  You are a third of his viewing base?
  
  Not an accurate claim, VERCE, but perhaps an accurate analogy….
  
  My ilk watching Bill makes him a very good living.
  Sprinkling on the 1/3 of YOUR ilk that watches him makes him filthy rich.
  
  Report this comment
- KidCharlemagne
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 11:37pm
  OldSurfRat
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 9:49pm
  
  Kid Charlatan
  
  Glad your keeping up with the real news.
  =======================
  
  Glad to see that you’re still keeping such a close eye on tabloid TV, OldSurfRat (even if you might not be bright enough to realize what it is you are actually watching)……
  
  There’s a really good reason why tabloid media mogul Rubert Murdoch made Bill O’Reilly his very first employee at FOX:
  
  ———————-
  “Inside Edition is a thirty-minute American television syndicated news program. The show was originally a mix of TABLOID crime stories, investigations, and CELEBRITY GOSSIP.
  
  The first anchor correspondent of the program was David Frost, who was replaced after approximately three weeks with Bill O’Reilly.”
  Wikipedia: “Tabloid TV with Bill O’Reilly”
  
  C’mon Man!
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.