Rocky Anderson HAMMERS Bill O’Reilly on The Factor

This is why we love Rocky. The contrast between Rocky and Bill was palatable. Bill seemed so small and helpless.

There does not need to be a demonstrable crime to impeach the president of the United States. Apparently Bill thinks there does.

I almost choked when Bill said in disagreement:

I think I know more than you do about American history and the Constitution.

Rocky of course was an ACLU legal eagle.

Andrew Napolitano,Rocky Anderson, Bill O’Rielly

Rocky says: Do you just have guests on your show so you can hear yourself talk? …You invite guests on to call them names?

After the segment, O’Reilly engaged Fox’s Senior Judicial Analyst, a thoroughly discredited (by the National Review nonetheless) former NJ State Judge, Andrew Napolitano for a little moral support after the spanking Rocky gave O’Reilly for his ignorance on the Constitution.

Here’s what Mitt Romney says about Rocky

, , , , ,

  1. #1 by Nephi on March 22, 2007 - 9:30 pm

    Good for Rocky keeping his cool and making Bill look and sound like the uninformed asshole that he is.

  2. #2 by The Blessed Rope on March 22, 2007 - 11:17 pm

    Rocky withstood O’really.

    Unfortunately it is like pissing your pants in the swimming pool, it gives you a nice warm feeling, but nobody notices.

    Rocky O’reilly, be a good name for a boxer.

  3. #3 by A GENTILE IN THE CHOSEN LAND on March 23, 2007 - 12:02 am

    After warming up with Bill,

    BRING IT ON SEAN!!!!

  4. #4 by Cavæt on March 23, 2007 - 4:58 am

    It always impresses me when the argument gets round to, ” Because I said so”. Can’t argue with that logic, now can you.

    O’LIEly, what a jerk.

  5. #5 by schreinervideo on March 23, 2007 - 5:54 am

    You’re missing the point. O’Reilly always comes out the winner because this is who he and his audience are. He’s Nero and they’re the Coliseum. When O’Reilly does what he did to Anderson, they win, regardless of the facts. It’s all done to make O’Reilly look big and tough, which he’s not. Anderson’s appearance was a stupid waste of time and the pre-determined outcome. He would’ve been smarter to spend his time elsewhere. Gentile is right: it’s just a warmup for Hannity. Fool me once, shame on me…

  6. #6 by Cliff Lyon on March 23, 2007 - 7:25 am

    Knowing Rocky as I do, I would venture to say he has weighed all considerations and come out on the side that says, if I can be one more voice calling for impeachment I must.

    In all decisions, Rocky peers far into his future and asks the question; “how will I feel about this decision (or lack of it) when I am old and gray and staring back at the world and my life?”

    This is why we love Rocky. So many of Rocky’s critics (and I don’t mean you Ken) project their own shallow intellect upon Rocky’s actions as caluculated to benefit him somhow in the short-run.

    Such small-mindedness is should be obvious to all. The public reaction to Rocky’s outspokenness on most issues is quite predictable which suggest he is either stupid or acting out of principle. I am quite sure it is the latter which explains why so few other politicians will do the same.

    If nothing else, I hope that Rocky’s legacy will be as one who stepped out and proved that a politician CAN speak their mind and survive if not thrive politically.

    Consider for a moment, that if Rocky can do what he’s done as mayor of SLC and survive how many others could and don’t?

    I mean really think about that for a moment. If we can all get past our tendency to assume all politicians are self-serving, and put on the shelf for a moment considerations of the person in favor of the effect, of the voice, and of the message, one cannot escape the conclusion that we should want more Rockys.

    With Rocky, you really get pure message and little posture.

  7. #7 by C aveat on March 23, 2007 - 7:42 am

    …and a whole lot of courage! Thanks again Rocky.

  8. #8 by The Blessed Rope on March 23, 2007 - 8:18 am

    Ah, look Cliff, what does the timorous voice from the mayor of a podunk city mean when the leader of the opposition has said impeachment is off the table?

    What a pile of losers, dump pelosi you losers!! No wonder O reilly has a field day. Your own fuckin house is burned down by the stupid bitch, and all you can come up with to attack the president is a gay rights, illegal alien supporting podunk mayor.

    GIVE US A BREAK!!!

  9. #9 by The Blessed Rope on March 23, 2007 - 8:20 am

    Rocky has his past, and the cons all know it. The causes he supports are not mainstream America. No matter how you “feel” he did, it doesn’t matter.

    You don’t go on TV shows like oreilly unless you are either aggrandizing or just a plain idiot. This guy oreilly makes fun of people professionally, he is a heavyweight asshole.

    Poor Rocky, hoping to pull a rabbit out of his hat.

  10. #10 by David on March 23, 2007 - 9:19 am

    Whomever you are rope, your personal disgust with the political status quo has clearly crippled your objectivity.

    Neither I nor anyone I consider a reasonably intelligent person would agree with either of the two alternatives you put forth; “unless you are either aggrandizing or just a plain idiot.”

    What is clear however is that your contribution to the debate has zero value or validity.

    Is your wife beating you again?

  11. #11 by Cliff Lyon on March 23, 2007 - 9:24 am

    Gee Glen,

    Sounds like I’m not the only one who finds you borish and tiresomely angry.

    Check out the hundred or so comments on Crooks and Liars

    How much more evidence do you need that your opinion is pretty shallow?

  12. #12 by Frank Staheli on March 23, 2007 - 9:44 am

    FoxNews gives me a headache. Bill O’Reilly is interested in tooting no one’s horn but his own. I don’t agree with Rocky on several things, but he has interesting points about the Iraq war that should be debated instead of just shrugged off. If people really wanted to know the truth, they wouldn’t treat Mayor Anderson they way Bill O’Reilly treated him.

  13. #13 by schreinervideo on March 23, 2007 - 7:17 pm

    Frank: you are totally right. No one “won” the O’Reilly-Anderson title bout because this should have been a discussion about impeaching Bush. But that’s not what happened and that’s not what O’Reilly, Hannity, Fox News are going to let happen because, for them, “news” is about generating controversy, hence ratings. Not clarifying issues through thoughtful exchange of information or healthy public debate. They will say anything, do anything to get ratings. That’s O’Reilly’s job. Not to defend President Bush, not to protect American troops, but to MAKE FOX MONEY. That’s why going on his show was a waste of Rocky’s time and plays right into O’Reilly’s slimy ratings ploy. Draw liberal impeachment supporters to O’Reilly’s show when they never would watch otherwise. If Rocky was truly intelligent, he would not waste his time with O’Reilly. What he succeeded in doing was amusing O’Reilly’s audience, making Fox more money and O’Reilly even more popular than he already is. Nothing more or less. Nice job.

  14. #14 by Rapist O'Reilly on March 24, 2007 - 8:50 am

    I wonder if O’Reilly is his REAL name. Being a criminal sexual assault, harrassment and misogynist extraordinaire you would probably need an alias or two or three. One thing that O’Reilly and the Rock of Salt Lake may hold very closely in common is disgruntled and abused workers. Although I can’t say the reasons are even close to the same but they could be . . .

    Why doesn’t Mr. O’Reilly interview his former secretary that he was expecting would fuck him under “other duties as assigned.” What a shit bag from outer uranus. I bet he’d be scared of “mainstream america” then! If me or my crew every saw him on the street mother f***er better have 9-11 in his speed dial.

    Remember me mother f***er.

  15. #15 by The Blessed Rope on March 26, 2007 - 9:09 am

    So why did Rocky go on the show? Do you know David?

    From an outside observer, I am simply using the Sherlock Holmes method of discovery. Take away the obvious, and no matter how unlikely, whatever is left is likely the truth.

    Otherwise I’m waiting for why Rocky went on the show. Does he like abuse. Is your wife beating you, to support such nonsense?

    Cliff, don’t atart the cheering section yet. Crooks and liars isn’t as big as oreilly. Gee, you figure that the sitting on their ass democrats that are now RESPONSIBLE for every dead soldier since the last election, not bush, don’t deserve my, and OUR disgust?

    Consider that the halftime asskicking by the coach you losers.

  16. #16 by The Blessed Rope on March 26, 2007 - 9:14 am

    Oooooo; one hundred comments!! 300 million people, one hundred comments. It’s a laugher.

    I really do not know what could be more shallow than a bunch of braying progressives, that will not do what they know they should and impeach this president, should already be done.

    Instead, sitting in a room somewhere, you post the psuedo-intellectual blather, while the man does what he wants, and Americans and Iraqis die.

    I know who is wading in the kiddee pool.

  17. #17 by The Blessed Rope on March 26, 2007 - 10:04 am

    Here is what I wish to provide, there is little for it from the democrat side.

    Sorry about all the crap. I will admit I am a lazy bastard and I do not have enough respect for anyone to take the two minutes to fix it.

    > > Power-drunk Dems on Same 1994 Road to Party
    > Suicide
    > > Carl F. Worden
    > >
    > > This article is intended for Democrat politicians
    > > and
    > > Democrat voter edification. It will be instructive
    > > and
    > > amusing for mainstream conservative Republicans
    > and
    > > Independents. You NeoCon Bush lovers will remain
    > in
    > > your rut, proud and arrogant all the way to the
    > > gallows. I hold out no hope whatsoever that you
    > have
    > > learned a thing, nor will you ever.
    > >
    > > From House Speaker Pelosi to the lowest level of
    > > Democrat elected official and voter, beware! You
    > are
    > > on the exact same road to political suicide in
    > 2008
    > > and especially 2010, as you were when ousted from
    > > federal power in 1994.
    > >
    > > You know, these past years have branded the NeoCon
    > > Republicans as the “Stupid Party”, and the moniker
    > > was
    > > well-earned to the extent that most of the
    > neo-Nazi
    > > Fascists who took over the Republican Party were
    > > actually surprised by the results of the last
    > > national
    > > election that swept Democrats into power. I saw it
    > > coming the moment Bush ordered the attack on Iraq
    > in
    > > March 2003, and I wrote about it with complete
    > > confidence.
    > >
    > > But now I’m watching Pelosi, et al, blow their
    > > opportunity to credibly lead almost from the gate,
    > > and
    > > they are headed for a major shock.
    > >
    > > First, the voters who brought the Dems back into
    > > power
    > > included a significant portion of mainstream
    > > conservative and disenfranchised Republicans who
    > > were
    > > so angry with the Bush/Republican Administration
    > > that
    > > they were willing to elect Dems no matter how the
    > > chips might fall later. Most of them hoped the
    > Dems
    > > would immediately start impeachment proceedings
    > > against Bush, but Supreme Moron and Speaker of The
    > > House Nancy Pelosi, dashed that hope by
    > immediately
    > > ruling out any possibility of an impeachment.
    > >
    > > I don’t care why Pelosi took such a stupid
    > position,
    > > because taking any hard position like that limits
    > > future options and leaves the door open for
    > > criticism
    > > if it ultimately becomes necessary to change
    > > position,
    > > when no other option to control the Executive
    > Branch
    > > exists. What it means is that Nancy Pelosi is
    > unfit
    > > to
    > > be Speaker for no other reason than she lacks
    > > wisdom.
    > >
    > > Next, President Bill Clinton admitted publicly
    > that
    > > the adoption of the Assault Weapon Ban was the
    > > specific reason the Dems were turned out of power
    > in
    > > 1994. So here we are in March 2007, and the stupid
    > > Dems are already trying to introduce another
    > > “assault”
    > > weapon ban. Further, I’m reading articles by
    > > socialist/liberal reporters from the Los Angeles
    > > Times, alleging that the “people” have
    > inexplicably
    > > changed attitude and are now in favor of
    > > socialist/nanny government programs, including
    > > abortion and gun control.
    > >
    > > Nothing could be farther from the truth.
    > >
    > > The current Dem Congress may not realize it, but
    > > they
    > > are serving at the pleasure of mainstream
    > > conservative
    > > voters who are already disgusted and disillusioned
    > > by
    > > their lack of immediate action and political
    > > games-playing, all intended to make it appear they
    > > are
    > > trying to end the war in Iraq while simply buying
    > > time. Hint: The voters are already losing
    > patience,
    > > and you had better start listening to them
    > >
    > > That Pelosi-style games-playing doesn’t work
    > > anymore.
    > > The voters are charged up, educated and
    > experienced,
    > > and want action with immediate results. If they
    > > don’t
    > > see it happen, watch for another voter revolt in
    > > 2008.
    > >
    > > If you’ve been paying attention at all, you know
    > my
    > > batting average on these kinds of predictions is
    > as
    > > close to 100% as it can get. I’m not clairvoyant;
    > I
    > > just have a solid grasp of the obvious.
    > >
    > > Stay tuned.

    Carl F. Worden

    “A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic
    tyranny.”
    ___ Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

    Time to arm up, and stay that way.

    > >
    > >
    >

  18. #18 by The Blessed Rope on March 26, 2007 - 5:34 pm

    You must be convicted of a high crime or misdemeanor to be removed.

    As for impeachment you need merely be accused, not convicted, you must have learned that little factoid from the clinton years. The blue dress being the proof of his lie. Under Oath.

    Now bush, we are so ill served.

  19. #19 by Cavæt on March 26, 2007 - 7:53 pm

    Surely there’s a stained pair of blue trousers somewhere.

  20. #20 by The Blessed Rope on March 26, 2007 - 8:58 pm

    Cliff put that lazy part in, because he is fundamentally a silly man. It’s not mine.

    Now does anyone really care about the “greater than” signs? It appears that cliff is interested in image and not substance. If you do, my apoligies.

    This is how all the ruckus began with his military friends, disingenous lying, and an inability to control his emotions. Pretty funny, huh?

    Feedback on the “greater than” signs would be appreciated. Is cliff beginning to suffer from OCD?

  21. #21 by Cavæt on March 26, 2007 - 9:47 pm

    Regarding the content of the Worden post. I believe Pelosi felt that the impeachment notion was undercooked as of election time, so she precipitated its removal from the table FOR THE SAKE OF WINNING! Thereafter, as we all knew and said repeatedly, our jobs would begin, with investigations, findings and the further accumulation of the evidence to affirm that, indeed, the constitutional provision for impeaching had no other place BUT on the table. Now grant that the dems have been involved in this new phase for somewhere around two months, the fans used by the admin to fling sh*t are bogging under the load, and things just aren’t well with them. They simply cannot persist without the ‘consent of the governed’ nor will they. My friend, be patient, don’t let down your guard, and keep up the good work.

  22. #22 by glenn on March 27, 2007 - 7:05 am

    Cav, ya right, she is part of the oligarch limo liberals. No matter what dems do now, the dead since the dem victory are still dead, and the blood is on their hands.

    With the amount of time left for bush and his, it is likley too late. Failure to act against this president with alacrity will forever shame the dum party. It should be a good lesson, if it is learned. The inaction will likely cost them the presidency.

    Meanwhile dems have supported every troop “surge” and the monies to continue the debacle in Iraq. what should they do impeaching bush? The very act will be an indictment of themselves. Americans, not as stupid as psuedo intellectuals and the elite imagine, see this, know it, and will make dems pay for it.

  23. #23 by C aveat on March 27, 2007 - 8:00 am

    So if the repubs, “pay’ and the dems “pay’, who are you suggesting the ‘Americans exacting the ‘price’ are. It is really our job. Verstans?

  24. #24 by glenn on March 27, 2007 - 8:48 am

    It is the job of the citizenry, both sides dum and rep will pay. It is our duty to rid the government of the ALL, and begin to move to the 3rd way.

    All who do nothing or violate their Oaths SHALL BE REMOVED!! Nobody owns it, except the public. So as WE THE PEOPLE, time to get smarter and more dangerous to the traitorous scum ruling us, from both sides of the aisle.
    It is SO absolutely our job. to vote den now after their total capitualtion to the traitors among us is do as Einstein said….

    “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results”. To vote dem after the last display, is to truly be INSANE!!

  25. #25 by Cliff Lyon on March 27, 2007 - 4:11 pm

    Cav,

    Glenn reads a lot of ancient history, big fan of Sun Tzu etc, thus he sees the world in a paradigm that includes himself as narrator of world history as it happens in some combinations of Nostradamus, Aristotle and Homer.

    Add to that his morbid fascination with weaponry and genocide and general distaste for humanity, and you get a lot of generalized fantasies of revolution and mass retribution, lynchings et. al.

    All quite harmless. Imagine if you will a little Hitler.

  26. #26 by Ken Schreiner on March 27, 2007 - 5:07 pm

    Why am I now humming “Two Little Hitlers” by Elvis Costello? Could it be my morbid fascination with 1970s British pop? ;-)

  27. #27 by caveat on March 27, 2007 - 5:39 pm

    We’re all morbidly fascinated, there’s no denying that.

    Ken perhaps you’re humming Two Little Hitlers because only one of em killed himself in the bunker that day. The other still lurks in the morbid fantasies of…

  28. #28 by The Blessed Rope on March 28, 2007 - 7:10 am

    test.

  29. #29 by The Blessed Rope on March 28, 2007 - 7:12 am

    cliffys site don work so good

  30. #30 by The Blessed Rope on March 28, 2007 - 7:15 am

    Nothing over 5 words posts for me. Here is more, to check

  31. #31 by The Blessed Rope on March 28, 2007 - 7:17 am

    Cliif is a loser, google Goodwins law

  32. #32 by The Blessed Rope on March 28, 2007 - 7:42 am

    Or Godwins Law, either way, cliff nullifies himself.

  33. #33 by VTSharron on March 28, 2007 - 8:53 am

    Enough of the loser talk, folks; were getting a bit sideways in the discussion.

    BTW, that Godwin’s law thing is pretty interesting. Good wikipedia chat on the subject.

  34. #34 by Anonymous on May 2, 2007 - 1:59 pm

    Rocky Anderson is just another vitriolic liberal coward,filled up with hate….Rocky Anderson is a big mouthed Unamerican piece of TRASH

  35. #35 by schreinervideo on May 2, 2007 - 3:27 pm

    Actually, while I’m not sure what his current motivations are, I’d probably vote for Rocky especially if he’s running against the vitriolic, conservative, paranoiac, Bush/Cheney Axis of Idiots, spendthrift/criminals/losers the Right is serving up. Record speaks for itself. Show me one Republican who’s reputable or cares about what most Americans think and I’ll show you someone who’s not really a Republican.

  36. #36 by Caveat on May 2, 2007 - 4:02 pm

    Well put, Schrienervideo.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: