Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bill O'Reilly cheats on his wife, not just sexual harassment.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 12:27 PM
Original message
Bill O'Reilly cheats on his wife, not just sexual harassment.
Edited on Sat Jan-22-05 12:27 PM by Eric J in MN
Bill O'Reilly didn't actually commit adultery with Andrea Mackris as his passes were unsuccessful, but the complaint strongly suggests he has cheated on his wife with other women.

According to the complaint, some of the other women Bill O'Reilly has had affairs with and/or sexually harassed were also employees of Fox New who worked on "The O'Reilly Factor."


The bully in Bill O'Reilly is shown in a passage of the complaint in which Andrea Mackris paraphrases what O'Reilly says would do to any woman who spoke out about his affairs and/or sexual harassment:


If any woman ever breathed a word, I'll make her pay so dearly that she'll wish she'd never been born.


I'll rake her through the mud, bring up things in her life and make her so miserable that she'll be destroyed.


And besides, she wouldn't be able to afford the lawyers I can or endure it financially as long as I can.


And nobody would believe her, it'd be her word against mine and who are they going to believe? Me or some unstable woman making outrageous accusations?


They'd see her as some psycho, someone unstable.



It's almost enough to lead one to conclude that Bill O'Reilly isn't a fighter for "the folks" who is "looking out for you" but a creep.

MORE, including audio from a related Al Franken contest, at:
http://MOVELEFT.COM


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 12:30 PM
Response to Original message
1. This should come as no surprise. Anyone who is involved in the kind
of behavior that O'Reilly exhibits is a bully. He always picks on people who cannot fight back. It would be so satifying to see someone stand up to him and make him wet his pants in public. The humiliation would be the absolute worst punishment imaginable for him.
I bet his father treated him the exact same way. (dime store psychology)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 12:30 PM
Response to Original message
2. I ffigured that O'Liely is a creep
the time I heard him on Fresh Air.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #2
30. Ever since he went on his
crusade against "Secularists," he make me wanna...

:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissBrooks Donating Member (614 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
3. Why must we always bring up the faults in our opponents?
Why can't we just do good and have our work speak for itself?

Why must we point at others and laugh or scorn them - why do we not just work on ourselves?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. That is valid.
On the one hand, no one is perfect, and it might be better to worry about our own morality instead of others.

On the other hand, when a man says about women he's slept with that if one says anything, he will "rake her through the mud, bring up things in her life and make her so miserable that she'll be destroyed"

and that man also constantly portrays himself on tv as sticking up for "the folks"

perhaps the contradiction should be publicized.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Oh, please
When we're daily bombarded with lurid sensationalism, all the sunshine and flowers we put out there will simply be ignored.

Calling hypocrites on their hypocrisy is essential. How else are we going to inject a tiny bit of doubt into the minds of the brainwashed masses who listen to these hypocrites as though they're reciting things set into stone and passed through the ages?

Don't expect to have your good works speak for you in this particular time. Do expect to have people call you a bleeding heart and a sucker for seeking justice for all of us. It's usually been this way when money rules.

Keep fighting the good fight. Just don't be afraid of calling out the hypocrites and exposing them for what they really are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissBrooks Donating Member (614 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #5
32. I disagree!
I hope that we get away from the name calling and we start building our platform for 2006.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. We're not going to need a "platform" in 2006.
We're going to need lots of coffins.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hong Kong Cavalier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Because we need to stand up to the bullying tactics of the right.
And while I agree, it is reprehensible, the simple fact is we are losing the debate.
Every good thing we do is being spun by the Right into something evil, something so un-American that soon, I fully expect for all the right-wing talk shows to start calling for the incarceration of people like us. The RNM (Republican Noise Machine) works like that, and don't believe that anything O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Coulter, or Inghram says is not cleared with the RNC first. It is. They've never had this cohesive of a message before. Ever.

I don't think we have to be just like them, (I know we're better than that) but standing up and saying "you, sir, have no moral stand on this position." will not defame us. If we keep it up, we can expose the Right for they hypocritical pseudo Christans they are.
Sadly, doing good and having our work speak for itself is not enough anymore. We're already doing that. We need to be passionate about what we believe. We're fine. They're not. But the general belief is that they're the true "moral majority" and we know that to be a lie. Just "Working on ourselves" will not be enough anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #8
16. Is my article reprehensible? nt
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hong Kong Cavalier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. Absolutely not. Sorry for the confusion.
Edited on Sat Jan-22-05 01:59 PM by Hong Kong Cavalier
I should have explained that what they're doing is reprehensible. And the fact that we're losing the debate is...(not reprehensible...that's the wrong word. More like unbelievable) Your article was excellent.
Again, sorry for the confusion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tsuki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #8
34. "not cleared with the RNC first." Or paid for? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hong Kong Cavalier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 01:55 AM
Response to Reply #34
35. My guess would be that it's paid for.
Oh, wait...that was a rhetorical question, wasn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
illflem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. Because the "other side" has learned to use it to their advantage
rumor mill negativity sticks with the public much better than the good points. Who wants to read about the house that didn't start on fire?
Sad, but that's just the way it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #3
14. Not always laughing & scorning. Good to point out hypocrisy of those
who insist they can decide what is acceptable behavior. Mr. O'Reilly regularly refers to his Catholic upbringing to lend some sort of moral credibility to his rants. Fine, so when he does not live by the tenants of that upbringing he gets to face the consequences. He presumes he can harangue about the morals of others, like he did with Clinton FOR YEARS, but thinks his own behavior is not relevant. Hogwash! He did not maintain adherence to his marriage vows so in regards to the sins of others, he should STFU. He has no moral authority and we need to point that out.

Isn't there something in the Bible so many wingers use to justify their attacks on others about lusting after someone being the same as adultery? Well, Mr. O'Reilly gets painted by the same broad brush he smears others with. Karma can be a lovely thing to behold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RetroLounge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #3
15. Because he is a pice of shit who needs to be destroyed
for the good of humanity?

just saying...

RL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gollygee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #3
18. Because he and that group claim to be morally superior
and they aren't. In order for people to see that the repubs aren't morally superior to the dems, we either have to tell the truth about them or lie about us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneTwentyoNine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #3
20. Yeah....O'Reilly NEVER does that does he??
Give me a break,O'Reilly is one of the biggest muck rakers ever to sit down in front of a camera.He preaches to his idiot flock that a Liberal is the worse kind of human on the planet because of lack of morals and ideology. Then...MR.MORALITY himself is heavily engaged in dirty phone talk (cost him about $60 MILLION last I heard) and he most likly cheats on his wife.

What should we do ignore him like we did with Limbaugh for a DECADE while he trashed Clinton and all Liberals?? I don't think so...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #20
28. Bill O'Reilly is outraged at the supposed ban on "pubic spirtiuality"
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/14...

Never before in this country has such a slender secular minority had so much power. The American Civil Liberties Union has succeeded in knocking Nativity scenes out all over the country against the will of the people. Here in New York, schools even forbid any display of the birth of Jesus. So much for the history of a national holiday.

The one-two punch of outrageous behavior and the diminishment of public spirituality is something this country is going to have to come to terms with.
=============================================================

Maybe he should try private spirituality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shrike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #3
21. Because they bring up our faults
And make up faults that don't even exist -- i.e., Clinton is a murderer, rapist, et. al.

I'll run a clean campaign as soon as they do.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mabus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #3
22. because the MSM feeds on scandal, except when...
It is one of their "own." The MSM has given O'Reilly full recognition as one of their own, therefore he is immune to scrutiny. If we, the thinking American public, are to give him a pass on his serial sexual harassment/intimidation behavior then we might as well just give up. Not to mention the portion of the Mackris complaint that more than implied that O'Reilly had direct connection through Ailes to the White House and then he made that threat about Al Franken getting it out the blue someday. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris12.h... Is that not information you'd want to know more of? I do. Especially in light of Armstrong Williams' paycheck to promote NCLB. How much influence is this administration exerting on the news media? That's a question I'd like one of the MSM types to cover.

The favorite icon of those in America who believe their moral judgment is superior to mine is Bill Clinton. Remember after he settled his sexual lawsuit with Paula Jones the MSM, especially those on Fox, hounded him until charges were brought and Clinton was drummed out of the Arkansas Bar for his lie. So why aren't the standards they prefer, since ours aren't up to their standards, being applied to their own. Why aren't unsolved questions concerning this sexual complaint demanding the same amount of moral outrage from them? Why isn't Bill O'Reilly being drummed off television for his sexual life? Why is it "okay" when a Republican sexually harasses a woman? Is it just because they are so scared of their masculinity that they don't want to confront their own misogynistic attitudes? Or their racial ones? Why can Jason Blair and Armstrong Williams be held accountable when they are caught, yet people like O'Reilly get to lie their asses of every day and not be held accountable? I mean, they ran off Pee-Wee the air for doing what a lot of men do when they watch porn in theaters. I'd be willing to bet that more men engage in Pee-Wee's behavior than O'Reilly's preferred method.

So, if we can't hold one of theirs up to their standards why do we allow them to do it to someone who disagrees with them? If we can make one of them accountable for serial sexual harassment when will we be able to hold the "legitimate" MSM news organizations up to scrutiny for their bad behavior in reporting the news?

The MSM, in their emphasis on ratings rather than content and reliability have tacitly acknowledged that Bill is one of their own and he is a superstar. We need news people, journalists not ratings winner.

Let's face it, CNN and MSNBC both failed in their attempts to overtake him in the media with more news oriented shows. Instead of covering stories that mattered, CNN went with the typical Big Three network spin. Remember Connie Chung's show? It was geared more to compete with the "60 Minute"-type shows with their usual fare of "outrage of the week" or the "gotcha" stories than doing anything of substance. How many times can you interview some second cousin of Elizabeth Smart before the sexually repressed Republicans gravitate back to O'Reilly's "the Gays are taking over Disneyland" story for their real gratification.

If we want them to understand where we're coming from they need to begin to realize what their crowned princes are up to. It is only because O'Reilly has ratings that the MSM give him a pass. If his show ratings were down they'd turn on him. He'd be the joke of the day, sort of like Tucker was (still is) for a while.

The media has a tendency to look the other way when the person at the center of a scandal, especially one involving sex, is a Republican. There's an old adage that says "Sex sales," but the rest of the sentence should read, "but only if the target is a member of the Democratic Party." If O'Reilly was a good Democrat then they would be all over it. Look at what they've done to Jerry Springer. Scoff if you want, he's political astute, intelligent and well-spoken. If you think I'm wrong compare the level of scrutiny and length of the scrutiny given to sex scandals of prominent Democratic leaders as opposed to Republican leaders.

Names like Clinton, Kennedy, Hart and Condit stayed in the news for weeks (and in some cases years) while the tabloid press and then the MSM looked for every shred of sexual impropriety or taint. Most often the more a target refuses to comment, the more ravenous the press gets. On the other hand, politicians like Henry Hyde, Schwarzenegger, Gingrich and Strom are quickly forgiven for their transgressions and their trespasses are soon forgotten. Remember the big brouhaha surrounding Jennifer Fitzgerald and the allegations that she and Poppy were more than friends? Poppy trotted out the whole family in front of the cameras (even his mom in a wheelchair) to try to stop the press from asking about it. The one reporter, I think she was from CNN, back when CNN had reporters with some spine, got admonished by her colleagues for asking such a question. Yet a few years later they took turns asking about Bill's dalliances. But according to the rules, the bigger the Republican hypocrite you turn out to be, the quicker your get your free pass.

I'd like to compare O'Reilly to a Democratic host but none come to mind. The so-called liberal or Democratic pundits usually have their own dog in the hunt, so to speak, and don't speak from the same set of regimented talking points like the Republicans do. Carville and Begala will stick their necks out for the Clintons but will concede factually loose points or hem & haw if the target of Republican scrutiny is another Democrat, especially if it is someone whom the Clintons don't like.


The media also looks the other way when the person at the center of the scandal is a white male. If O'Reilly were a minority you can bet your bottom dollar that the MSM would be all over it. Look what they did to Jason Blair. They held his feet to the fire. Heck, they'll even let the press feed on another Republican if he is a minority. Look at how Armstrong Williams finally got his comeuppance. Of course, the MSM did let him get away with that 50 count sexual harassment lawsuit filed back in 1997 by his male assistant. So, maybe O'Reilly is getting a pass because its the first time.

At the same time, the MSM steadfastly refuses to hold any of their own accountable. It refuses to acknowledge the hatchet jobs people like Karen Tumulty, CiCi Connolly and Kathryne Seelye spread during the 2000 election. As misogynistic as Republicans are they are willing to let women lie on their behalf every chance they get hence the "popularity" of Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham.

In addition, if you are a white male who has been caught in a scandal there is always room for you to become a pundit at Fox News. Look at Dick "toe sucker-secret teller" Morris or Ollie "the treasonous bastard" North, they were welcomed at Fox News because they tow the Republican line. The bigger the liar, the more welcomed you are. And if you are willing to lie big the MSM will reward you with your own show, as well as any other amenity they can give you to cut you off from real America. But then O'Reilly already is a big liar with his own show.

But beware, don't try to go from "liar" to "truth teller," otherwise your name becomes mud and then the MSM will do everything they can to belittle you. Compare the treatment given to David Brock's "Blinded by the Right" to anything that Dick Morris has pulled out of his ass. You can go from "left to right" but never try to go "right to left."

So, for me, the bottom line is they've got a hypocritical, lying bastard who can do and say whatever he wants and never be held accountable and that's okay with you? I don't think so. He's sexually harassing women! He's a sexual predator. He's not any better than a child molester. He uses sex as a weapon and gets off on it. Why is he given a pass?

He's epitomizes what is wrong with the media today and we don't stand a chance to take back our country unless we start holding the media accountable. Clinton received sexual favors for which our country has suffered. Why? Because they found a hook for the non-thinking, rapture at any moment, fundies so they could pull them in. In the meantime, our Democratic leadership caught a sudden case of Loopner's Disease and instead of standing firm and giving blind allegiance to their leader they let the Republicans take over. Hell, they rushed to condemn him. Concurrently the GOP gained a foothold in both radio and television with Rush and this freak O'Reilly by playing up to the "National Enquirer" reading types. The more the sex they could attach to their new Kennedy, Bill Clinton, the more their ratings went up.

It is time to give them a taste of their own medicine. It is the only way things are going to change.


FREE PEE-WEE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #3
27. This particular fascist can NEVER be appeased!!!
He and those like him only understand the language of tyranny. No one should enable these bullies' behavior.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #3
31. Because it diminshes their power
When he is exposed for being a philandering ass, it diminshes his ability to hold himself up as the standard bearer of morals. When Rush is exposed for illegal drug abuse, it diminshes his ability to speak with credibility as a moral standard bearer. When people like the antigay gay republicans are exposed, it diminishes their ability to smugly declare that they are standing up for family values.

It's a matter of exposing them for what they really are to their religious right followers.

(In the case of Kerik, it was just for fun.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 02:11 AM
Response to Reply #3
37. Don't you find it insulting when people use the word, "we"
when they are trying to criticize other people?

Learning to control oneself and turn away from trying to control other people is the hardest lesson in life, and a lot of people simply can't accomplish it. It's just too damned hard for them.

I believe O'Reilly is not capable of self-government, and looked at this thread hoping to see something has happened to get him off the airwaves and out of the road. He's a silly, confused person. I resent his pompous, poisonous personality and have sucessfully avoided listening to him for ages.

Thank god for satellite radio. Don't have to ever bump into him now just to hear live talk radio.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pam-Moby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
6. O'Reilly is a distasteful excuse for a human.
Here he gets away with this crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mabus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #6
23. He's human? Can that be verified?
Independently, I mean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GRLMGC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
7. And he always harps on Clinton's infidelities
O'Reilly's horrible character never ceases to amaze me
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
10. I'm still working on anyone agreeing to consensual sex with him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. The legal complain tindicates that he
sexually harasses and/or has sex with women who work on his tv show.

I don't know whether they put up with it (besides Andrea Mackris) because they find him attractive or because they're afraid of losing their jobs, otherwise.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WoodrowFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #10
24. yeah, that concept will take awhile to grasp (NT)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Miami Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
11. This guy is a disgusting POS
who can't even tell the difference between a loofah and a falafel. :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kskiska Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
12. He used to get awfully cozy with Arthel Neville
back when he had her on once a week.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shopaholic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. It doesn't matter to his viewers or listerners--not one bit.
Just like it doesnt' bother them that Newt can talk about family values-and dump two critically ill wives or that he's on wife number 3, who happens to be decades younger than he is. Just like it doesn't bother them that Rush has had--what 10 wives and is a drug user. Or that Bill Bennett tells them all about moral values and then is caught being a gambling addict. NONE of this matters to these people. As long as you tell them you're a Christian and that you're God's chosen one to return this country back to the "religious right" then you're golden no matter what you do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UTUSN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
25. So Why Does David BOIES Give Him Legitimacy by Going on His Circus?
I hadn't tuned in the O'LIELLY circus since his scandal broke, on the grounds that he was no longer a threat, that nobody would give any weight to what he said anymore. But last week, flipping channels, there was DAVID BOIES with O'LIELLY smiling away, like gloating about getting a Dem "name" to squirm. And true to form, our Dem dude was HESITANT, TIMID, and TEPID------like our Lefty column-writers are, who don't have the MEDIA PRESENCE to batter back at wingnut bullies on cable. So there was BOIES being KIND, and NOBLE, and CAREFUL WITH HIS WORDS, while O'LIELLY was LAUGHING at him. I thought we were rid of O'LIELLY, but I guess we Dems will give him our bleeding hearts to eat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid wants Democrats to go
on Fox News, to make our side heard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
26. O'Reilly is a scummy crumb of a man.
I hope he overdoses on his Viagra causing his penis to explode!

OMG! I can't believe I said that! x(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
porkrind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 02:11 AM
Response to Original message
36. Dil DO'liely is the vilest scum.
"If any woman ever breathed a word, I'll make her pay so dearly that she'll wish she'd never been born."

The very definition of a right-wing scumbag. Eeewwww. :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 19th 2014, 09:51 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC