Meltdown: Laura Ingraham calls out Bill O'Reilly on 'Bible thumper' insult [video]

If the Associated Press can pressure thousands of newspapers and other media outlets to drop the term “illegal immigrant,” is it too much to ask that conservatives think twice before dismissing other conservatives as “Bible thumpers”? Apparently so. Fox News host Bill O’Reilly is unhappy that his critics — unhinged “zealots,” that is — have latched on to his use of that term as evidence of a feud between him and right-wing radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh.

O’Reilly’s brilliant approach to countering that misconception? Pick a fight with another right-wing radio host, in the form of Laura Ingraham. If she was thumping a Bible, there was no way we could have heard it over O’Reilly’s ranting.

An apology to Ingraham wouldn’t be out of line, but we’d be surprised to hear even an “I’m sorry if you were offended” non-apology from O’Reilly.

  • jpcrotser

    Maybe O’Rielly needs thumped with my Bible…

    • $24975675

      He does…and I hope your Bible is a very large & heavy one!

  • Patriot

    What a damned moron. One thing O’Reilly has got to understand is he has to let people finish a sentence. You don’t shut people up when you don’t like what they have to say. You are the pin head here O’Reilly and you owe Ms. Angle a big apology. When you start finger pointing and shutting up your guests, you have lost PERIOD!

    • Rulz

      Well, in this case you may be right, but a lot of times, his guests go off or avoid the question and he has to cut them off.

      • dcnrmn

        Problem is, more and more he is using that excuse to cut them off because he wants to hear only the sound of his own voice, He treats guests as just another set decoration.

      • HSmith

        Sorry, can’t agree with you on this. O’Reilly cuts people off all the time, and not just because they’re avoiding his question. He can’t stand it when someone disagrees with him, particularly women. I’ve seen him talk over his female guests almost every time one speaks. O’Reilly is plain rude.

        • ICooper

          I agree HSmith. I think his problems go much deeper. His divorce proceedings have left him a bitter man. One who is supposed to be so religious is going after everything including enforcement going after his wife. O’Reilly, how about turning the other cheek since you are very religious. Just keep writing your books and stop intimidating your guests. Iris

  • D2

    O’reilly didn’t just start making an ass out of himself. He’s a statist twit, a bully and a loudmouth. It would have been simple to say that those who feel the need to mix religion with their politics are losing the audience. He doesn’t need to offend them, although that is his schtick. Can’t he go back to Inside Edition already?

  • cscape

    curously, O’Reilly the LIBERAL actually agrees with Limbaugh, the CONSERVATIVE on the subject of who will “win the debate” on MARRIAGE…… Rush opined that Gay Marriage is a virtual fait accompli on his show last week

    • Rulz

      It’s really not. I mean you see the polls 58-39 in favor or whatever, but look at Maryland. That state went to Carter in 1980 and only 51% voted in favor, probably with Blacks supporting it in leiu of Obama.

      Also, it’s social conservatives who are having kids in this country, and with the inflation in education, the enrollment in useless feel-good courses will have to drop, so I think the so-called “gay marriage” advocacy will peak and then decline some.

      • dcnrmn

        What does public opinion as cited in the polls have to do with a liberal policy being a fait accompli? If the libswant something badly enough, they will have it sooner or later, ObamaCare, anyone?

  • Jillane Kent

    Suddenly, I am that much more thankful for The Blaze, the Roku, Reason TV, and the Fox Business app.

  • B Miller

    Way to go Laura! Thanks for calling Bill out on his Bible Thumping comment.

  • bri

    He always treats female guests with distain. It is not their fault he has wife problems.

    • ozconservative

      He used to have a segment on his show when he would debate cultural issues with a couple of the FNC ladies (usually Kimberly Guilfoyle, Megyn Kelly, Margaret Hoover and Andrea Tantoros I think). He would say something stupid and they would tear him apart like great white sharks at a whale carcass.

      Haven’t seen that segment for a while though.

    • axemole

      You obviously do not watch the ‘Factor’ so please keep your moronic comments to yourself… BillO is more of a patriot than you are in a million years.

      • Rosalie

        I think he does have his good points. However, he does seem to have some of O’s traits like being thin-skinned and arrogant. He will never change unless perhaps his ratings start to sink. He needs to humble himself and apologize not only to Ingraham but to his viewers, but he probably won’t.

  • my2centshere

    Bill’s getting meaner and more full of himself everyday.

    • dcnrmn

      He is unbearable and unwatchable. He treats his guests – even if they agree with him – as idiots who need to be lectured to. I know that Ms. Ingraham wants to preserve her position at FoxNews, but I would have loved to have seen her get up and walk off the camera, telling him to “go debate yourself”,

      • EastValleyConservative

        Yes, and he has taken to given the benefit of the doubt to things that have none, while going bat crap crazy over small things that might contradict him. He is arrogant beyond belief.

    • ltgreen

      I’ve noticed the exact same thing. I also think Laura hosts the O’Reilly Factor better than Bill does!

    • Patrick Dennehy

      Bill likes to pontificate; no doubt. I watched it and wouldn’t categorize it as a ‘meltdown’. Bill bloviates and talks over his guests all the time, that’s what he does. This was a normal segment in my mind..

      • my2centshere

        I disagree, I’ve seen him behave like this more and more. Bet you a $5.00 he’ll be saying he’s sorry to Laura at least once this week. If you check around the stories are all about what a jerk he was.

        • Rosalie

          The only way he’ll learn is for his ratings to sink after this. Maybe then he won’t be so arrogant.

    • 2ifbyT

      This was absolutely must-see TV. Sadly, he is pompous, arrogant, and ignorant – just like a certain elected official. O’Reilly’s next book says it all: Killing Jesus.

    • Vennoye

      Bill must be trying to emulate Joe Scarborough as having a conservative thought or two in his head. Instead, he just plays one on TV.

      • my2centshere

        I was thinking more like Ed Schultz.

    • Rosalie

      He sounds just like a liberal anymore.

    • Brad Bashem [email protected]

      Did you see the one where he taunted Dennis Miller on saying Obama was a Socialist….and Miller looked like he wanted to jump through the screen to throttle him…..Dennis Miller has been calling Obama a Socialist since 2009….and O’Reilly NEVER did, chastized people for doing so…..then in Feb he SEES THE LIGHT, (no one else did) and is first to do the calling out O on being a Socialist…..unbelievable….pompous Ass-hat!

  • maplebob23

    I gave up on O’Reilly after he smeared the SWIFTies back in 2004.

    I also remember some years before that he claimed he would hold Kerry and Kennedy accountable for their part in the government fraud that was The Big Dig. And then he dropped it.

  • SkywalkerNoScream

    O’Reilly has a point but he’s acting like a huge ass

    • dcnrmn


    • Jillane Kent

      O’Reilly is engaging in simplistic name calling that mocks the very prescient concerns that many people, non religious/non Christian, have. Lest we turn into other nations that use the tax code to punish religious institutions who choose not to violate church doctrine, a bit of caution and an assurance that all factors are considered is hardly the province of “Bible Thumpers” alone.

  • Rulz

    Bill needs to get back to basic tenets of traditionalism.

    Furthermore: there are PLENTY of SECULAR arguments against so-called “gay marriage”.

    • Sons Thunder

      Then why aren’t we hearing them?

      • William Bacon

        Because the So-Called Unbiased Media (SCUM) refuses to air them.

        • Sons Thunder

          What arguments are they refusing to air?

  • ML

    I’ve always had problems watching him. His argument doesn’t seem as valid if he constantly interrupts or yells at the other person the whole time. Kind of reminds me of Piers Morgan in that aspect, to be honest. I like Hannity better.

    • Louis Dvorsky

      Looks like Mr. Interrupt stuck his foot in it again.

  • blynnd

    Entire episode became silly. Lost track of what Bill was trying to say.The Bible is a fine defense for most issues. Our laws are based upon the moral and ethical standards within the Bible. A ‘bible thumper’ is degrading to Christians. As are terms racist, bigot and homophobe>terms used against republicans in general.
    Bill is off. Really off his game. He’s way over the top emotionally. Wondering if something has him over stressed/ defensive. He’s smart. He is fair. And in the Bible thumping usage-he’s wrong.

    • ssj429

      I agree that the term is very offensive and rude. However, in a secular, public debate you cannot quote scripture. It will not win you the debate. In private setting among friends, family, and associates you can.

      • TugboatPhil

        I agree with you there. I do think that homosexuality is a sin, but not greater or lesser than any other. However, my argument on homosexual marriage is never from that point of view.

        All I ask from the ones arguing in favor of it is to show the biological or scientific proof that homosexuality is an inborn and unalterable trait which justifies them having standing to change the legal definition of “marriage”.

        And when I leave the Bible out of it and argue from that question, I am almost always called a bigot, hater, homophobe, or else they ignore the question.

        My entire adult life I’ve heard homosexuals saying that they should be treated equally because they “are just like us.” But now for this issue, they are somehow a separate class of person that is unable to deal with marriage as it has been defined for centuries. Either they are regular humans or they are not. I still think it’s a mental disorder along the lines of alcoholism or drug addiction.

  • Ronald

    “Thump the bible was purely a policy play” LOL

  • Brett McMicken

    the only thumping i hear is bill o’reilly’s head as he tries to fit it through the doorway.

  • Richard Jefferies

    I’m surprised Bill can talk with Dear Leader’s [censored] filling up his pie hole.

    • rinodino

      Lets not talk about your secret dreams of Obama , this a semi family site

  • Scott Carroll

    O’Reilly was his usual buffoonish, boorish self and he was inarticulate in making the point, but the point itself was dead on. Too often opponents of gay marriage quote the Bible to buttress their arguments, instead of using more persuasive points that could sway the debate in their favor.

    Pro-traditional marriage folks have allowed the pro-gay marriage camp to frame it as a civil rights issue and Americans have a Pavlovian response to that phrase. We are a good and decent nation, the least racist, most tolerant nation in the history of the world. It was ingenious for the pro-gay marriage faction to frame the debate this way and stupid for the traditional marriage proponents to cede this ground.

    You can’t make the Bible the locus of your argument in a debate with people who don’t believe in the Bible or are only nominally Christian. They will tune that argument out and be rocked to sleep with the lullaby of “civil rights!” and “equality!”

    Think of it this way, if someone were earnestly trying to win your support for something that you were on the fence about and they started quoting Lenin (my apologies to any Communists lurking Twitchy) while the other side of the debate offered you a Reese cup and a hug, which would you go with? My point is that Lenin or unicorns or the Loch Ness Monster or Paul Krugman is not something we particularly believe in and any argument predicated on that (no matter how good it may be) would fall on our collective deaf ears.

    The Bible is the foundation for ethical monotheism which in turn is the backbone for all of Western Civilization. Equality, justice, suffrage, liberty, compassion, all the moral precepts that nearly everyone in the world takes for granted have their genesis in those 3000 year old words. There would be no United States of America without the Bible. I love me some Bible, but you either have to win the issue without it or inform the people who instinctively recoil from it how important it has been to stability and good throughout the world. Much easier to do the first than the second. The most articulate proponent of traditional marriage I’ve heard is Dennis Prager. He shreds each argument for gay marriage presented to him and he never uses the Bible to do it.

  • Steve_J

    O’Reilly is a horses ass and always has been. It seems he uses his show primarily to promote his books and “tours” with Miller and previously Beck.

  • Donald Borsch Jr

    O’Reilly’s a typical Catholic. What would he know about The Scriptures, anyway? Christmas and Easter are just two times out of the year he is forced to go to his church and talk about how the liberals are trying to destroy them on his show. Tedious.

  • nc

    BOR was contradicting himself when he kept shouting to LI that he had no argument with Rush. During his whole Talking Points Memo, the title was displayed over his shoulder which read, “The left-wing media, Rush Limbaugh and me.” Why single out Rush if he “had no argument with him?”

    As for the Bible Thumper remark, everyone, including Alan Colmes, tried to tell him it was a derogatory term and he shouldn’t have used it, but he wouldn’t listen. So, just like the point he’s trying to make about about making an effective argument, he ironically loses this one.

    And lots of people are making non-Bible based arguments all over the place. He should listen more.

    • $24975675

      When Laura Ingraham AND Alan Colmes both tell you that you’ve gone over the top, you should probably realize that you’ve gone too far. But O’Reilly will never do that. After all, real live “gods” are impervious to criticism by mere mortals. Well count me as one mere mortal who stopped paying attention to that arrogant blowhard a long time ago.

  • Stone Bryson

    I haven’t been able to watch O’Reilly for ages. He has soft guests on the program who will not challenge him, and when someone does he flips out. This is a man who is rapidly becoming irrelevant, and because of his ‘greatness’ bubble he does not even know it.

    • $40665324

      Soft guests?? You are telling the truth when you say you haven’t watched for ages.

  • jb

    O’reilly started this crusade against Christians early last week. Ranting then do. He has a book coming out called “Killing Jesus”? I doubt it’ll be any good. My guess is that O’Reilly either is a closet gay or has a gay/lesbian in the family. Hence, his position (which is as always self-centered)

    • Deborah Hallsted

      I think he is of a generation, though it is mine, where more liberal educated Catholics had biased views of Evangelical Christians, and how he’s lumping everyone who is Christian into that category.

      • jb

        That could very well be too. I wonder if understands the optics of the situation. Or if he us just so full of himself, that (uhoh here comes a bible reference!) he wants to take a stick out of someone else’s eye, but won’t take the log out of his own first.


    Do not watch his show

  • Chase C.

    I completely agree with Laura on bible thumping and insulting Christians. But late last year I was able to go to Bill’s and Dennis Millers tour and I promise you Bill is a lot more Conservative than he portrays on TV. His show is extremely popular because it appeals to both sides of the isle. How he acts on his show is entirely for ratings.

    • Grumpa Grumpus

      A serious question: does that mean that he’s disingenuous on television — or he’s faking his demeanor in-person?

      • Chase C.

        I think on TV he tries to appear more moderate to get better ratings. I honestly believe that Bill is more right leaning than he appears on his show. Which I disagree with completely. I want honest commentary from a opinionated show. This is why I stick to The Hannity Show and The Five when watching Fox News.

  • Zaire67

    I stopped watching this pompous fool years ago. He and Geraldo Rivera are two stains on FoxNews channel. John Stossel puts on a much better program.

  • Marty Luther

    According to Bill. cancer patients with no insurance can get treatment in the ER. So there’s that bit of idiocy. Oh, and I’m a conservative bible-thumper too. <-proud of it

  • Brent Guthrie

    Is Bill trying to denigrate competition? I’m late to this game, but the appearance seems canny.

  • lcky9

    I seldom watch O’Riley anymore he’s gone LEFT..of center.. must be drinking to much Kool-Aid on tour.. I do watch if if Laura is hosting..Bill has lost his COMMON SENSE..

  • Clemenzza

    Here’s a suggestion for you loofah boy, next time you say caution and swing that finger around at the beginning of your program, do something constructive with it. Stick it up your ass. Do it for the “folks”.


    I seriously doubt he is a real christian, its sad to say but you do not argue and say that god is not the answer.

    • Chase C.

      His argument was trying to win the social debate. If you use God and the Bible as an argument how are you going to convince the millions of Americans that don’t believe in God or they do but don’t abide by the lessons in the Bible. Honestly there are good arguments against Homosexual marriage that don’t involve religion. Legalizing gay marriage and then what? Polygamy, pedophilia or incest. The Gay marriage argument is it’s all about love and equal rights. Well you can use the love argument for any of the 3 things I just mentioned, but equal rights argument is shut down with civil unions. So basically this entire argument is about a title and a definition of the word Marriage.


        No, God is the answer, period. Gay marriage is not about love and equal rights. Marriage is only between a man and a woman.

    • Deborah Hallsted

      He is however, a Catholic, and they are not usually ones to quote the Bible, or bring up it’s principals in moments other than religious discussion. The majority separate politics and religion so much, it is to the detriment of their core religious beliefs, so perhaps that is his problem. He handled this badly; he should have (rightly) pointed out his desire for rational logic arguments on this, rather than religious doctrine (which I personally agree with) (it doesn’t sway those who are not religious, or are low information voters). I would like to have someone stand up for the “majority of voters”, who upon having voted, lost their vote and voice to powerful judges. That’s a position of power. I did see him a few weeks ago, quite rightly, nail the Hawaiian Senator when she misquoted him blatantly in news feed, after only reading a bit of twisted slander on Politico.

  • GozieBoy

    Bill is a real enigma. He can be the best at times, but he can also be the worst. Tonight we saw the latter.

  • OwnItObama

    Rush calls O’Reilly “Ted Baxter” and it fits him perfectly.

    • goldwater89

      Why are you so enamored with a guy whos been married four times?

      • bossmanham

        Why would you bring up something so irrelevant?

  • Clemenzza

    I guess in loofah boy’s world these people would be called “Wall Worshipers”

    Or how about this collection of “Rug kneelers”

    Are these just a bunch of “Pond waders”

    CAUTION . . . . . . You are about to watch cable TV’s highest rated asshole.

  • ssj429

    Bill has to know that the term “thump the bible” is a derogatory term that liberals use against republicans. His point, though, was correct; you cannot quote scripture in a secular debate. Now if the gay marriage debate happened at church, or among religious friends and family, then you can. Nonetheless, O’Reilly knew he was being offensive with his choice of words and statements. Both O’Reilly, along with Megan Kelly, were purposefully trashing and insulting conservatives during their segment. Bill is being a pinhead for playing dumb and acting innocent. He is also trying to bully others into making them appear to be the jerks; not himself.

  • ssj429

    Another thing, O’Reilly has done a heck of a lot of good for conservatives and republicans. I am in no way excusing him for his terrible and purposefully choice of offensive words and statements. However, he has done more good than harm. Now off on another little tangent about O’Reilly, did anyone notice that he purposefully brought Bachmann back into the debate by attacking her again at the start of the program? Out of everyone to point out, he again chose her to go after.


      He has done nothing for conservatives!

  • $29561723

    O’reilly is a gun-grabbing, Big Government twit

  • darcy922

    I thought Bill O’Reilly really stepped out of line with the bible thumper comment. I have always watched Bill, Although, I have always found him to be just a bit overboard on some subjects.
    But I still continued to watch him. I found him to be too mouthy and just plain rude to Laura Ingraham. Bill would not allow Laura to talk at first, and then continued to talk over her. And then made the remark that out of all the conservative talk show host that he always thought that she was the most level headed of all, and went on to say she disappointed him.
    I say to Bill O’Reilly that you really disappointed me tonight with your bible thumper remark.
    You were also unnecessarily rude to Laura Ingraham..

  • arrow2010

    They are bible thumpers, own it. Be proud of it fundies.

  • Garth Haycock

    I used to be proud of the fact that O’Reilly and I have the same alma mater. (Go Red Foxes!) Now, the list is down to Rik Smits.

  • Bill Board

    I can’t stand to watch the self absorbed, rude O’Reilly anymore. Hannity is getting just as bad, constantly interrupting and even insulting Dana Perino tonight. Fox News is going down hill.

    • therantinggeek

      Part of the reason why I stopped watching Fox News in the evenings and late nights.

  • Okie_pastor

    “you are saying I insulted Christians and I did not” uhhh Bill maybe us ‘Bible Thumpers’ should be the judge of that. And by the way I will make my arguments through the Holy Bible every day and all day long!!

  • mhojai

    Despite his “catholic upbringing,” I don’t think Oreilly actually realizes that someone can genuinely have their response to the current cultural sewer, based on a set of beliefs that is found in Scripture. He doesn’t take Scripture literally, or really, seriously, and so can’t imagine anyone else does. So any Scriptural reference is mere “Bible thumping.” Laura made a good try at calling him on it, but it’s like “pearls before swine.”
    He’s been hanging around with too many of the liberal elites and feels himself “superior” to the “folks.”

  • Ariadnea

    Conservatives should avoid committing the liberal’s lazy default way of thinking – of behaving like automaton or belonging to a hive mind mentality. Debate should be welcome and should be heard. It’s not normal and healthy to agree 100% all of the time.

    I understand Bill O’Reilly’s point that if you want your point getting across the skull boundaries of nonreligious, secular, or those who are of different faith, you need to use other means, reasons, and logic other than just because the Bible said so. I also appreciate Laura’s point that those who use the Bible should also be respected and appreciated for their faith. Having said that; in talking and debating policies, which would affect also those whose faith is dissimilar, one must go beyond quoting the bible or “hell and heaven” as justification. Why not instead think and reason why the Bible encourages some behaviors and prohibits others, and what and how these behaviors affect and impact society at large (short and long term consequences)?

    There is no such thing as human right not to get offended, other than in Liberal’s lah-lah land, so this and future disagreements should be taken as challenges in getting across or communicating our ideas better.

    • Ben Bollman

      Well said and I agree 100%. I think the problem most of us conservatives have with Bill is he tries to be objective with the left and tries to win them over by agreeing with some of their points. The problem is that he doesn’t understand that the left has no interest in agreeing with us on anything since they have adopted Alinsky tactics and their primary objective is to divide and conquer by disagreeing with everything we conservatives believe. It doesn’t matter what we believe they will still believe the opposite. The only way to fight that mentality is to expose it and deride it which is why Rush is more effective than Bill.

  • Axelgreaser

    BILL O’REILLY WILL NOT ONLY ‘THUMP’ THE BIBLE, but with ‘Killing Jesus’ he’ll shamelessly thump the title of the book through our craniums every 10 seconds and make enough for himself and his partner to pay off the national debt in the process. And that’s fine, that’s capitalism but honestly, upon hearing this man has finally opted to run off for a life upon the wicked stage won’t leave me the least bit disconsolate, lugubrious or even doleful, referencing O’Reilly’s vocabulary expanding nightly sign-off. How about Ingraham or Levin (or both) as a replacement? It’s time that FOX, if they are to be thought of as legitimate at all, put someone in that prime hour that will go after Obama and the Democratic party and not demur, cover for, show astonishment to the opposite over every incidence in which Obama has clearly committed yet another assault on America and American’s. Either O’Reilly is held back by management, or he’s purposely propping this President up. And can’t we get ‘Pro-Obama’ ‘Obama Propaganda’ and ‘Obama Worship’ viewing MSNBC or from just about any other meida outlet going? Why do we need a ‘Whimp Factor’ at this juncture in our history, especially from FOX at primetime?

    • wwbdinct

      Excellent post!

      • Axelgreaser

        Thanks! :)

    • Unsooper

      Criticise Obama? He won’t even call out Chris Tingles. His version of “fair and balanced” is to be a weathervane. An ambiguous pompous bully who takes the safest popular stand and claims he invented it. Ingram kissed up to him by telling him he has been consistant in his opinions when he clearly “evolves” into whatever the populist meme is at anytime. Ever notice how poorly his staff researches issues? He is wrong on fact 75% of the time and when called on it insists it is either not important or talks over whomever tries to correct him. He’s a jerk, a bully and a blowhard.

  • Guest

    Even as a Believer, I was not offended by Bill’s ‘Bible thumper’ comment. HOWEVER, I absolutely understand why some were, and it was a jackass thing for him to say. I know some people get their panties in a wad pretty easily but he’ll never apologize, NEVER. I am a regular viewer and I’ve noticed he’s getting nuttier with each passing day. His interruptions I know are normal, but let them finish and just SHUT UP BILL!!!

    In conclusion, I support Bill’s Right to be a COMPLETE ASS! When he get’s on my nerves, as he did with Miss Laura tonight, I just changed the channel. I enjoy the program, for the most part. But if he’s going to act like a dick, I’ll shut it off. Try again later.

    • Axelgreaser

      He’s unfocused. He’s juggling three career’s at one time. He should be replaced and ‘contribute.’ And FOX upper management may be ‘sitting’ on him at the prime hour he occupies, who knows. If FOX won’t stand up to Obama, who will?

      • Jillane Kent

        The new media (The Blaze, Reason TV) and the blogosphere routinely stand up to Obama and tone deaf legislators quite often, Gibb.

  • borntodie

    He looks down on Christians and conservatives the same way the rest of the media does. He got caught. I never did like him or watch his show, so it’s no great loss to me to see him exposed and on the defensive.

  • el_polacko

    bigots don’t like being called bigots and bible thumpers hate it when you point out that they are bible thumpers. these people who are always ranting about gay people and cite the bible to back up their views aren’t really bible believers nor christians…being anti-gay isn’t the central tenet of christianity…they are thumpers who use the bible to excuse their animus and bigotry. bill may be a loudmouth and a bit of a bully, but he’s spot on with this observation.

    • Kleverabevera

      Yes! Yes! People who know the Bible really are not Bible believers, nor Christians. People who mitigate the Bible and tell you not to believe the words therein are the true believers. Man I sure am glad you came a long and straightened that out.

      • Mike Faber

        I thinking he was trying to illustrate that using the bible to confirm your bigoted beliefs isn’t very Christ-like.

        • Ben Bollman

          LOL Using THE BIBLE isn’t very CHRIST-LIKE? Wow, you are a moron.

          • Mike Faber

            Christ wasn’t a bigot, ergo using the bible to support bigoted beliefs isn’t Christ-like.

            Marriage equality is about civil rights. End of story.

          • Ben Bollman

            Nope, not end of story by a long shot. Christ opposed homosexuality as stated IN THE BIBLE. When is that going to sink through your thick head? Maybe you should actually read the Bible before ignorantly stating what Christ would want. An optional contract between a man and woman is NOT a civil right. It is a privilege granted by the state that can even be denied to heterosexual couples so don’t give me this “civil right” crap. Gays are not being denied any God-given rights, they can even be in civil unions if they choose so.

    • TocksNedlog

      Question: Is it bigoted to label all of the Christians opposed to same-sex marriage as ‘not real Christians’?
      Because, in essence that is exactly what you did.

    • wwbdinct

      It’s not bigoted to be against gay marriage and it’s not just so-called bible thumpers who are opposed. There are many people who are not religious at all (myself included) who are opposed to it. A fact that always get lost on you lefties who forever make sweeping generalizations.

    • Hiraghm

      Buck up… Since Obama claims his BRAIN initiative may find a cure for PTSD, it surely can find a cure for homosexuality, and then there’ll be no more bigotry against gays…

    • axemole

      El Polacko is a gayoooooo, queerooooo…
      Denying Gay the rights to marry is all about DEFENDING THE RIGHTS of the CHILDREN and WOMEN more than any bible thumping… you are just a hyena jackal that believeth to make a point to your argument based on these two conservatives being at odds with each other… i.e. that is just as ignorant an argument as your stupid, immature, delusional comment.

  • Kleverabevera

    What other argument do we have against abortion other than, “Thou shall not kill.” If it is not wrong with God then what leg would we have to stand on. We thump the Bible on a host of laws.

  • Mark Jordan

    O’Reilly was his usual ass-ness, but really, Ingraham could have laid off the compliments. This comment was a softball waiting to be belted out of the park, and she felt compelled to compliment his Douche-ness about ten times.

  • Karla M

    The way he talked to Laura Ingraham was so aggresive. Why doesn’t O’reilly recognise that secular aerguments against redefining marriage are available to read online? Secular arguments defending Prop 8 and DOMA have been put forward in briefs to the supreme court

  • v1cious

    Take a page from O’Reilly, he’s the only one using common sense on this issue.

    • Clemenzza

      Who the hell names their kid Tyshunn? Daquan and Juwain already taken?

      • axemole

        Clemenzza = begger of mercy

  • kateorjane

    BOR should join the no-labels. It’s becoming rather clear that he finds social conservatives an embarrassment. Other than his personal issues he’s like many libs – “I believe xyz but that’s a private matter rather than a public policy.” Maybe Laura should have asked him how he was so anti-abortion since the basis for that is the Bible he thinks we shouldn’t be thumping.

  • CO2 Producer

    We’ll thump it live! Thump it!! Thumpin’ Bibles SUCKS!!!

  • ozconservative

    If Bill O’Reilly wants to act like a pompous dick like Keith Olbermann was, pretty soon he WILL be like Keith Olbermann.

  • lillymckim

    Laura and Rush are the voice of reason on this Bill and we have a much right to our beliefs to what the meaning of a traditional marriage is as do the other side without be called “Bible Thumpers” why you just didn’t apologize was simply “your ego” getting in the way.
    The only time I have heard the term “Bible Thumpers” it’s been used in a derogatory sentence & usually by someone like the hate filled Bill Maher.
    Don’t feed the state run media hell bent on division and destroying this party.

    We have two parties for a very good reason and I’m so thankful for Fox, Rush, and Laura. Lets not feed the state run media aka The Democratic Party.

  • lillymckim

    Nothing but Democratic State Run Media Fed Rhetoric to divide lets not feed this pig they want to call the media.

  • wwbdinct

    I stopped watching O’Reilly about 6 months ago. I just couldn’t take his pomposity anymore. Tried to just watch the Miller segment on Wednesday and Gutfeld and McGuirk on Friday but gave up on that as well. I listen to Miller every morning on the radio anyway so I say to O’Reilly: F U!

  • viking1942

    Time for O’rielly to go. He has lost his marbles. Talking like that to Laura Ingraham was the last straw. Fox should replace him with someone like Michelle Malkin who is a lot smarter than him. Then again weather he believes it or not there are a lot of people out there who are a lot smarter than him.

  • Luke Givens

    First Trump vs Malkin now this? LOL, thanks again for the free entertainment, conservative buffoons. For the third act I want to see Palin vs Rove. Make it happen! Dance, puppets!

    • Herman LaClair


    • Jillane Kent

      As opposed to the intellectual titans on MSNBC, right?

      • therantinggeek

        Isn’t “intellectual titans” a contradiction in terms, especially when it comes to DNCTV? :)

    • wwbdinct

      That’s right Luke. We are capable of independent thought and opinions. Unlike you lefty drones that dutifully obey Dear Leader. How’s the Kool Aid taste this morning?

      • therantinggeek

        I secretly switched out Luke’s Kool-aid to sugar free. I was tired of seeing him bounce off the walls. :)

    • Mike Sanfilippo

      Not a damn thing wrong with disagreements within a political movement.

    • Matt

      Don’t blame Luke- he’s a sheep. Bahhhhhh.

  • Minarchism Leads To Freedom

    Billy and Fox have devolved into a right-wing progressive network that looks down on conservatives and libertarians. They should replace the whole lot with people like Ingraham.

  • Typewriterstreaming

    I would love to see Bill O’Reilly call Jews and their Talmud and Muslims and their Quran “Thumpers”. He was defensive, arrogant and a complete bully to Laura. I switched channels after that. He’s a bloviator.

  • axemole

    Bill O was and is right… you can’t win this debate on the ‘secular’ public arena, merely on quoting the Bible… but he is WRONG in the way he bullied Ms. Ingraham… ‘THUMPING his SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS’ lost all credibility while debating Laura… he bared his a$s on T.V… Bill definitely has some deep-seated unresolved issues.

    Perhaps Bill wanted to win some points with the left, after obliterating Alen Colmes, saying to himself that he is fair; demonstrating that he goes after both left/right… but in this case… Laura HAD a point to make

    Just the facts, BillO, just the facts would’ve been enough.

    Admitting you made a mistake is more manly than shouting and pouting.

  • likeablaze

    O’Reilly will now refer to gays as Co(% Suckers because “It’s accurate, Laura!”

  • Guest


    • Ben Bollman

      I think most people are perturbed at O’Reilly for the way he presented the argument than the argument himself. He may have a point BUT our personal moral beliefs should determine policy because our founders knew liberty only worked with a good moral society. If we started cowing down our own beliefs because of a minority group of people in this country then where does it stop? There has to be a line drawn in the sand somewhere. That said, I agree with O’Reilly that gay people should be able to have legal civil unions as long as marriage stays between a man and a woman.

      • Guest

        Ben I can agree with everything you said here.

  • ejochs

    Has he ever addressed his loofah habits on the air? How much did he settle that one for, anyway?

  • Rich

    O’Reilly with his tantrums is getting harder to watch. Put Jay Leno Show in that time slot.

  • terrisarten

    This was probably one of the clearest examples of O’Reilly’s contempt for conservatives and people of faith. Both Monica Crowley and Laura Ingraham pandered to his rage by saying, “Bill you are right..” only Ingraham tried to broach that calling people of faith “thumpers” was a bad idea and we see where that went.

    Bill thinks he can be this bully because he is winning the ratings war and that is evidence he is looking out for the folks. That “schtick” got old with me a long time ago.

    But for the record, Bill is dead wrong. If people of faith are against gay marriage for reasons of faith, then they don’t need another reason. If it doesn’t win the argument, they don’t need to find a better fake argument. However, I agree with the reason of faith because that IS the argument. Most conservatives don’t care about Civil Unions, but they care about marriage. And they usually don’t have an issue with saying Civil Unions get the same benefits as “marriage licenses” get from the federal government. However, the word marriage will allow the federal government to impose marriage ceremonies in houses of faith. If you don’t think so, then just look at the birth control/abortion mandates on religious institutions. That’s the argument.

    • Mike Sanfilippo

      If the bible is your only argument, you lose. Soundly.

      • Matt

        You’ll lose In the vast majority of states in which the people are allowed to vote on it. You’ll lose at the Supreme Court level. You’ll continue to lose because you’re an intellectually dishonest douchebag.

        • therantinggeek

          If SCOTUS decides to punt on California’s Prop 8, that would effectively mean that the 9th District Court’s ruling would stand. Liberals are quick to point to the “Equal Protection Clause”, which they derive from the 14th Amendment, Section 1: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The question would then become whether or not the other States within the 9th District would likewise have their laws regarding SSM struck down, or if it would only apply to California.

          I did a bit of research on what the laws in California state when it comes to benefits for domestic partnerships, and what I found was interesting. ( In a nutshell, domestic partnerships (including same-sex partnerships) are *already* granted the same rights as married couples (see for specifics). I think where the argument comes is that for the most part, the Left has always been an opponent of Christianity, and as the term “marriage” has more or less been identified with the church, they want to see that taken away and applied to everyone equally across the board (again, citing the 14th Amendment).

          What I contend with is that there was *already* a statute that had passed in 2000 (Proposition 22), and as that was overturned by the State Supreme Court later; Proposition 8 was then proposed as a ballot proposition to amend the California State Constitution. It was approved by a simple majority of voters, but as someone decided that wasn’t fair to them, they took it to the 9th District Court in an attempt to get it overturned, claiming it was unconstitutional. I also contend that the Court overstepped its bounds by getting involved in the matter, rather than letting the will of the people stand. (Argue “will of the people” all you want, the fact remains over 50 percent of Californians voted in favor of Prop 8, and their State Constitution does say that a simple majority is all that’s needed.) I could also make the case that the Court violated the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution, as the Courts of Appeals were created by Congress and therefore this should have been a State matter instead of getting the federal government involved.

          Now, if SCOTUS decides to strike down Prop 8; again I’ll make the case they are in violation of the 10th Amendment as before. I also believe that this would open the doors wide open for many gay-rights supporters to start attacking the other States who currently have laws banning SSM, and there’s likely to be a whole slew of lawsuits to follow.

          If SCOTUS decides to UPHOLD Prop 8, a lot of Liberals won’t like that decision and I can pretty much guarantee a lot of them will be calling for several judges to be removed from the bench.

  • arttie

    His shtick is wearing thin. I refuse to watch when he won’t
    let a guest answer without being interrupted.

  • Joseph A White

    Quit watching O’Reilly months ago, when it became clear to me that he is an Obama apologist as well as a blow-hard. Rarely watch FOX News at all, now. Too many libs like Sally Kohn, Jehmu Greene, Geraldo Rivera, Juan Williams, Alan Colmes, Bob Beckel, Shep Smith et al. Shame that they used to be a good source of news and balanced perspective. No more.

  • Mike Sanfilippo

    At the time I watched this, I felt his premise is 100% correct. Reading through these comments, now I KNOW he was correct; I see nobody in here is even refuting what he said: that pointing to the bible is an insufficient argument and needs to be backed up with something other than religion if you want to “win” the debate. People who aren’t religious should not be bound by your personal beliefs. And if you really got your panties in a bunch over his “thumping” line, it’s not up to him to apologize. It’s up to you to get over it- just like you expect leftists to do when they cry about being offended over something ridiculous. THAT is what being thin-skinned is, and I don’t blame him for rejecting the idea that he has to apologize. I understand most of you feel that pointing to the bible is a legitimate argument, but alas, it’s not. That was his point, he was absolutely right about it, and conservatives not effectively countering the left transforming gay marriage into a civil rights issue is why public opinion has swung so decidedly. Countering with “because, bible!” makes people not married to a political affiliation- which is the vast majority of America- roll their eyes. Step up your game or consider yourself soundly defeated on this issue because it’s getting away from you in a hurry.

    • Matt

      Oh ok, well now that the Arbiter of All Things Correct, Mike Sanflippo, has chimed in, I have completely reversed my position on gay marriage. Thank you for setting me straight. You complete and utter ass.

  • JoeMyGodNYC

    Infighting between the teapeople is SO satisfying. MORE PLEASE!

    • Joseph A White

      Sticking your head in the toilet and flushing is satisfying for you liberal azz clowns.

    • Cajun

      Hey NYC, we got this, so be cool. Hey, I heard you all like ‘dark meat’ in NYC?

      • JoeMyGodNYC

        “I heard you all like ‘dark meat’ in NYC?”


  • Himtngal

    O’Reilly is more liberal than conservative. He needs to be replaced as he is losing it these days.

  • Mike Faber

    I don’t like either of these people. But Bill is right on this one. Is “bible thumper” a pejorative term? Absolutely. So are some other choice words used to describe gays. Abomination comes to mind. I’ve heard plenty of religious people use that word.

    Before we get into the persecution of Christians, a notion I finds quaint at best, let me paraphrase to examine what O’Rielly meant by what at he said.

    When a nation of laws debates on whether rights should/shouldn’t be expanded, the side that uses The Bible as their chief source of argument will always lose. This is not to be provacative, but I say this without qualification: God does not exist in courtrooms.

    Now before you reply with, “Well, He should,” let us also recognize that a large swath of the church preached against desegregation and interracial marriage. All I’m saying is that when a group of people demand civil rights, they win. It may take a long time, but they always win.

    And if the only defense you can cite is from the law firm of Matthew, Luke, Mark and John, you will lose. You have every right to believe what you believe, but the court cannot simply accept it as a point of policy.

    • bossmanham

      Except homosexuality is an abomination. No one says gays themselves are except maybe Phelps. Actions are abominations. Get over yourself.

      • Mike Faber

        Wow. Can’t argue that logic, but I’ll bite. Personal feelings of homosexuality, whether based off te bible or not, are not a legal argument.

        And since the act is considered an abomination in your eyes, are you suggesting that gay people closet themselves and live in loveless marriages? Is that really your God’s path to salvation?

        Again, how we feel about gay sex has nothing to do with the legality if withholding civil rights.

        • bossmanham

          They aren’t personal feelings. They’re observations of the natural order and of objective morality.

          //are you suggesting that gay people closet themselves and live in loveless marriages?

          I’m suggesting they either abstain or get married (as properly defined). I’d tell that to anyone who wants to have sex.

          //Is that really your God’s path to salvation?

          God’s path to salvation is Jesus Christ. We are to have faith in Him. If you continue in your sin, it shows your faith isn’t true.

          //how we feel about gay sex has nothing to do with the legality if withholding civil rights.

          No one is suggesting we should withhold civil rights from anyone. Are single people being discriminated against too?

          • $24975675

            Allow me to interject just one simplistic point. Words have meanings, and definitions of words remain constant. Or at least they should remain constant. The left is continually assaulting the language by assigning definitions to words that are incorrect and do not apply in order to try to advance their goals.

            Based on the definition of “marriage” that has existed for millennia, it is literally impossible for homosexuals to marry. That is absolutely NOT a slur or a “homophobic” statement. It is a statement of fact. However, if the left insists on playing ridiculous word games, I’ll play along. So, from now on, I choose to refer to myself as a “multi-billionaire” and expect to be treated accordingly. That is how I wish to be seen & treated – because I said so. No other reason is necessary.

    • Ben Bollman

      “Now before you reply with, “Well, He should,” let us also recognize that
      a large swath of the church preached against desegregation and
      interracial marriage.”

      Yes, and apparently you have been listening to lefty revisionist history. Conservative Christians supported the civil rights movement and a Conservative Christian freed the slaves. Those that opposed those things were not listening to the Bible. Also, I am tired of this narrative that gay people are a put upon group of people and being denied a civil right. They are allowed to do everything except enter into an optional contract between a man and a woman and even at that they can still have a civil union. Quit with this “civil right” nonsense.

    • kilthan

      Except, most churches were against segregation, and before that slavery. In fact, the Abolitionist movement was started almost entirely by Bible Believing Christians. There were some churches that were for those things, but not nearly as many as they try to teach in school or college. I’m tired of this hackneyed worn out rag that Christians were pro-slavery. Its bull, and the truth is it was Democrats who were pro slavery, and liberals promoting Evolutionary eugenics that argued blacks deserved to be slaves because they were mentally inferior and needed the superior whites to control their lives.

      • Mike Faber

        Democrats of the 1800’s are not those of today. After the civil rights laws passed LBJ even told his press Secratery that he just handed over the south to Sout for a generation. It was a very bitter pill fir him to swallow. There has been a distinct paradigm shift. And it started with Nixon courting fundamentalist Christians. And if its rights we want to bestow, why don’t Republicans support marriage equality as if they were abolishing slavery.

        • kilthan

          Because no matter how many times the people try to equate marriage ‘equality’ (its not equality they want, but that’s another issue) to slavery, it doesn’t stick.

          Under the law as it stands, everyone is equal. you can only marry a person of the opposite sex. No where is the word ‘love’ involved. No one has the right to marry the person they love. Consider the following: unrequited love, the person that is loved is dead, the person that is loved is underage, the person that is loved isn’t a person (a part of the Democrat party, a vocal part, wants animals to be considered people too), the person they love is already married, the person they love is a close relative.

          Love is a non-issue in marriage, as far as the law is concerned. My problem, and the problem many conservatives have, is the simple understanding that: More laws make you less free. The push is almost universally for MORE LAWS to make SSM legal. That makes you less free. Why doesn’t the SSM crowd push, instead, for the elimination of marriage law all together? Why don’t they push for a simplification of the tax code and health care privacy laws? The answer is simple, because it is not, and never was, about equal rights or any of that, it is simply to force those who do not agree with their lifestyle choices to be forced to accept, condone, and celebrate them. The higher up politicians support it because, for them, more laws give them more control.

          As for the tired line of a ‘paradigm shift’ in the parties… Not so much. The historical evidence for that is ZERO. Fundamentalist Christians have, since the days of the party’s founding, been Republicans. They split from the ‘Democratic-Republican’ party because they were being ignored by what became the Democrat party. They were tired of seeing their fellow children of God enslaved, and they acted. If the shift you believe happened existed, Robert Byrd would have left the Democrats and became a Republican. He didn’t, because we would never have had him.

          FWIW, If a gay couple wants to get married, and can find holy person from a religion that will marry them, more power to them. But at no time should they be allowed to infringe on the religious freedoms of those who do not wish to condone, perform, or in any sanction them. Doing so is called the Tyranny of the Minority.

  • Sherri Dennis

    I haven’t watched him since he and Brit Hume made rude comments about Sarah Palin.

  • Ben Bollman

    Bill may have been right on the overall point but he was rude and spoke over Laura the whole segment, wouldn’t hardly let her speak. Also, I do think the Bible does have a place in public policy in this country since many of our founding documents and policies are derived from it. If we give in to this nonsense that we can’t let our personal beliefs influence policy then we might as well give up any debate on what is morally right and wrong and just let people kill and rape whoever they want.

  • rinodino

    It’s so funny watching conservatives head explode over bill… When he has been doing the same boorish behavior to libs on his show for over ten years you cheered him on…… So what happen to all the love for good ole bill who fights the good fight? Ha ha ….own him , he is yours

    • Mister A

      Chris Matthews…. that is all.

    • kilthan

      I never liked him. I’ve always thought he was an ass, regardless of who we was attacking.

    • Ben Bollman

      You have your own jackass named Bill….Maher. Don’t throw stones in a glass house

  • SettingAside

    Sadly, O’Reilly seems to have missed the point that his “Bible Thumping” comment is insulting and meant to be so by those who want to ridicule Bible believers.

  • Josh

    Its shitty attitudes like his and a few others why I can’t stomach Fox’s opinion shows. Love me some Megyn Kelly, the Five & Red Eye but can’t tolerate the ego’s of Orielly & Hannity .. too much self importance emitting from those two. No thanks. Learn to tone down your ego or lose more viewers.

    • devan95

      Agree about Oreilly, Hannity not so much.

  • John Kerry’s Forehead

    What about Benghazi? Jobs? Energy costs? Giving aid to Muslim Brotherhood?

  • Conservative First

    Bill’s a conservative? Since when?

  • michael s

    Treated Laura as if she was Andrea Mackris

  • Smeethow

    I hope o’riellys e-mail is full of people taking him to task for his religious slur, because that’s what Bible Thumper is. And Mr know it all should have known that.

  • Guest

    O’Reilly has extreme difficulty admitting he is wrong.
    The expression “bible thumper” is pejorative,
    he is trying to parse words by pretending he was being literal.
    His attack on Laura Ingraham was in defense of his weak position;
    for which he then sought affirmation from Charles Krauthammer.

  • 1SkepticalChick

    And that book he’s writing, “Killing Jesus”? No longer expecting it to be fair or balanced. So just no.

  • Patricia Maykrantz Long

    Someone told O’Reilly that it’s OK to argue vehemently with righteous indignation when he wants to make his point, which he says is always correct. He is really starting to get on my nerves> He invites guests on his show to discuss an issue, then talks while they are talking so we hear nothing of either argument. Bill thinks his way is the only way and if you don’t agree, you’re simply wrong. Congrats to Laura for standing up to his yelling. No one should have to deal with that from a conceited co-worker.

  • devan95

    Bill, your next book should be titled “Killing the First Amendment,” since you seem to advocate that my beliefs, principles, traditions and opinions cannot be based on my religious beliefs….Wonder what you will say in the chapter about those coming to America to avoid religious persecution…?

  • Dwayne Jackson

    The more successful Bill has become the more arrogant and overbearing he also has become. I use to love him and his show but a little over a year ago I grew tired of his arrogance and belittling of everyone and stopped watching his show. I see nothing has changed.

  • Joe Dokes

    Bill has said, at least once, on air, that he’s proud to be Roman Catholic. Since in many areas his church’s positions on issues can take precedence over what’s revealed in the Bible, Bill is probably just hedging his bets for the day – which is not impossible – Rome comes out in favor of homosexual marriage. Just a guess and it could be wrong but one thing is for sure – if there were ever any doubts about Bill’s heart opinion of the Bible, now there should be none: he has very little use for it.

  • Funeral guy

    When he addresses guests (especially women) by their last names he comes across as a condescending bully. He’s getting harder and harder to watch.

  • Funeral guy

    When he kept calling semi-automatics “heavy weapons” I thought my head was going to explode.

  • Kevin Eggert

    If O’Reilly wants to see the REAL “pinhead”,he needs to try LOOKING IN THE MIRROR,and go back to that sleazy Inside Edition,where he BELONGS! So,doing”honest commentary” means insulting your audience?Fox,PLEASE do us all a favor,and yank that HACK off the air YESTERDAY!

  • Anderson

    BOR acted like a 2 year old in general and a rude condescending jerk to Ingram specifically. It really doesn’t matter whether he said bible thumpers or bible thumpING as he asserted. Both are used by progressives to bludgeon, debase and dismiss Christians and conservatives, so either way its insulting and pisses people off.

  • Dave Suchy

    Im ashamed of this whole ordeal, including Laura…why is she tweeting that a station is gonna make an issue of it, unless she’s attempting to bask in the glory of opposing the mighty Bill, who allows her to shine her star on his show in his chair quite often… The point O’Reilly was trying to make that Laura wouldnt acknowledge because she wanted to patter on about the use of ”thumping”. Let me clarify it for you brilliant minds, when in a debate with an atheist, buddhist, pagan, or anyone else that has no respect for the Bible, thumping on a dead book(thats how they see it) is not going to forward you in your cause or win anyone over. You have to use more than that, statistics, for example, studies have shown lesbians are overweight and tend to drink alcohol to excess, according to studies…the stability of dual sex parents, etc etc. call it derogatory if you wish, dwell on the word as long as you want but as a believer in Yeshua Im not offended by his use of the word, Im offended that thats all she wants to bring to the debate. Our religion alone will not win the debate, and that was the point he was making. Remember, many of you also decry the AP’s announcement not to use the term ”illegal alien” because it offends. So are you going to promote division because his use of one word? or are you going to enter the debate with more than your religion? Remember we do live in the US we are not governed by any religion, but by our Constitution. I saw Bill and Lauras exchange and Ive seen her in many debates with Bill’s guests and many many times she feels that ”THE BIBLE SAYS SO” is all thats needed. But when debating an atheist, its not.

  • CrashFroelich

    Bill suffers from acute Rush envy and because he’s a wannabe he ain’t never gonnabe.

  • $24975675

    I never knew why anybody ever considered Bill O’Reilly a conservative. He’s always been a very mixed bag, and the biggest element in that bag is his off-putting narcissism. He’s an absolute bleeding heart lib on a lot of issues. I’m not surprised that he publicly demeaned devout Christians though. In his own mind, he himself is the only “god” that matters and he has little patience with anyone who disagrees with that.

    Actually, I think the reason he has gone fairly easy on Obama is because, for O’Reilly, looking at him is a lot like looking in the mirror. Both of them are enormously arrogant & conceited. They both have constantly delivered far less than they promised to their supporters. Actually, instead of “supporters”, sycophants is probably a more accurate word to describe O’Reilly & Obama fans. I stopped paying attention to either of them a long time ago.

  • rant stocks

    Bill I been watching you for years and here lately it’s this and that with people on your show. Bill you’re # 1 for 14 years are you on a kill mission for that time slot…SEEK HELP !