^^^^
Just enjoying getting under your skin oh "unflappable one". Those that like to profess they have a "calm demeanor" are the most fun to poke and prod because their arrogance always gets the best of them. See, you have buttons just like everyone else, and they too can be pushed. I just like to see you squirm a bit in your seat and then pull the fence post out of your ass and make you pick a side. While you flap your arms squaking that you do not defend the man your silence on his faults says otherwise. It's like not casting a vote during an important internal debate, because you do not want to take sides. Those that obstain from the vote are usually just too cowardly to have their name on record of going either way (don't get your panties in a knot, I'm not calling you anything, just pointing out a generality). I think you should have commented on the content (from academically reputable sources BTW) rather than what you construed as the ideological bend. If you think they are wrong you could have pointed out where they were faulty in their facts. Of course by doing so would indeed make it appear as you were defending, how did you put it, "cable TV's most popular news man" (sounds like a ringing endorsement from you as you used that claim to backup your argument).
You may also want to go back and re-read the thread. You clearly defended O'Reilly when you said that his lawyers would have a field day with the accusations of inappropriate behavior (which you did not back up in any shape or fashion). It was then I pointed out the error in your comments by pointing out the rather long and sorrid history of one of America's greatest enemies of truth, one Bill O'Reilly. So stop playing the victim. You made the outrageous claim and you got beatdown by your own statement when the facts were presented. If you didn't mean it that way, it came out differently than you had intended. You should clarify those comments and what you really mean about your position on O'Reilly and his character.
|