Oct

6

That’s Right, an O’Reilly Drinking Game

Written by

Ok. Bwog wants desperately to elevate the conversation about the Minutemen Mania– and we hope you’ve gotten that impression from our coverage thus far. But sometimes, bwgossip bears such delicious and tempting fruit, that we just can’t help eating from the Tree. We hope new viewers to the site don’t call us terrorists for posting this, but…


orilley A worthy Bwog fan sent us a drinking game, to enliven your Friday night in front of the tube watching Fox News.

Drink every time O’Reilly mentions his book “Culture Warrior,” “far left loonies.””SPs”, or the “no spin zone.”

Drink every time someone starts a comment with “Let me interrupt you there,” “You’re missing the point,” “Well,” or “Ok, but.”

Drink every time Columbia is accused of being “Ivory Tower,”far left” or “out of control.”

Drink every time someone inappropriately references the Nazis, the fascists, the terrorists, “a million Mogadishus,” or the President of Iran.

Drink every time Avi flails, stutters, winces, gesticulates, pantomimes, or mumbles.

Drink every time Avi stops a given sentence and starts over. Drink again if O’Reilly doesn’t interrupt him.

And finish your drink if anyone mentions Mark Foley, a loofah, or Nicholas Murray Butler.

Tags: , ,

75 Comments

  1. please stop

    masturbating over how cool you are because avi is on o'reilly.

  2. hmm

    are any of you part of the left-wing jihad that holds power over columbia?

  3. FUCK YEAH

    avi is tearing it up

  4. poor avi.

    avi didn't do well. :(

  5. hmm.

    so i guess that means too close to call.

  6. Random People  

    Avi has a big chrom

  7. sakib  

    avi, i love you...
    but i think o'reily totally used you to bounce his rhetoric

  8. alo  

    i wish i could watch this. bwog please please do another fake video things where u tape the tv later. this is all excellent fodder for varsity show. damn, this beats columbia unbecoming and the mealac debacle by faaar.

  9. re sakib

    O'Reilly uses EVERYONE to bounce his rhetoric. Avi did a good job appealing to all the reasonable people.

    The rhetoric was much toned-down from last night, and Satan-Spawn stuttered his way through his usual imbecility.

  10. Stephen  

    That was silly. Kulawik should debate Avi sometime, rather than just letting O'Reilly hold his hand and bully Avi.

  11. Zimmerman

    let's face it, Avi looked like like a simpleton, and one who allowed terror to overcome his face any time he worked up the courage to respond to O'Reilly coherently. Chris, to his credit, at least had the good sense to let Bill lead him around by the nose. Yes sir, he did.

  12. UhOh  

    Avi, you and your left-wing Jihadis need to go back to Saudi Arabia!

  13. Otranto

    And here we have it, O'Reilly took Avi and most of Columbia university down a moral peg or two. I especially loved the part when Avi's gibbering remarks about how Columbia was ideologically fair were played to a backdrop of unbrideled Leftist violence - 1968 anyone?

  14. whoa

    Avi got reamed. He looked like a sputtering idiot. Even when O'Reilly did let him talk he couldn't get a coherent point across. "Uhh, well, I just think... I mean, it's not indoctrination."

  15. re: Zimmerman

    of course he did. that's o'reilly's strategy--he always brings on someone he can bully and someone he agrees with.

    avi hit the main points: isolated incident, columbia takes all sorts of positions, etc.

  16. i disagree!

    i've been reading transcripts of o'reilly's show all night (don't ask!) and avi held up as well as anyone.

    he didn't look like a genius, but he had a much harder hand to play than chris did.

  17. abc  

    it wouldn't have mattered what avi said anyway, the people who watch the O'Reilly factor regularly only believe what O'reilly tells them.

  18. down what peg?

    down the "left-wing jihad" peg? come on.

    o'reilly was trying as hard as he could to make the school looke ridiculous, and avi wouldn't take it. once or twice he made o'reilly back down.

  19. Well...  

    Glad Avi had the courage to go on and defend the university. Thanks. I highly doubt any of you criticizing him could have done better or would have even had the courage to try.

  20. oyy

    "a backdrop of unbrideled Leftist violence " my ass.

    footage of kulawik throwing punches more like it

  21. yeah, but

    don't we wish that the person defending columbia had done a better job. unfortunately, rational thinkers like prezbo had no desire to get killed on o'reilly.

  22. i think  

    that avi did the best that anyone could possibly have done. he also happened to cite real evidence... on o'reilly, that's a huge accomplishment.
    go avi!

  23. here's the thing

    it's not a level playing field. anyone on that show gets beat up.

    to win, you have to play to an intelligent audience and make the point that o'reilly's rhetoric is over the top.


    "isolated incident" vs. "left-wing jihad" makes the point.

  24. why

    don't comments on the karina post work? i want to talk about how awesome she is...

  25. incidentally

    can i point out that fox didn't mention any of the things bwog corrected? they've been doing their research.

  26. video!  

    can someone hook us up?

  27. oh, columbia!  

    oh, columbia! alma mater weeps! i wonder how this will effect the $4 billon capital campaign. i bet bollinger's thinking more about that the freedom of speech...

  28. re: oh, columbia!

    we have something like this happen every year.

    record fund-raising years so far.

    whatever.

    o'reilly will blow off enough steam and this will disappear

  29. right!

    and kulawik still has to live w. that face

  30. Sara  

    Bwog will be posting a video after the show re-airs at 11. We'll make sure to include the KoolAid-drinking-liberals reference you may have missed if you didn't tune into the end.

    -Sara V.

  31. BWOG  

    BWOG has now sunk down to the level of Al Arabiyah and all those crazy Islamicist news sources. How dare you spotlight, not one but several left wing jihadis who spend all their time drinking kool-aid. FOR SHAME.

  32. joe

    you people or sick in the head.

  33. re: joe

    i pick "you people"

    yay typos

  34. haha

    who knew avi the arrogant got nervous?

  35. thank you!  

    thank you monique! So proud to see someone go toe to toe with Hannity

  36. Stephen  

    The bit on Hannity and Colmes was much better. Eva represented herself very well, and Sean Hannity just made himself look like an arrogant ass.

  37. koolaiddrinker  

    The kool-aid reference is a referring to the Jonestown Massacre, where a bunch of religious nuts in Jonestown, Guyana followed their religious cult leader and drank poison-laden kool-aid and died. Its short-hand in political speech for someone who buys into everything or mindlessly follows without questioning. The sad thing is that OReilly is pretty much the political equivalent of the Kool-Aid Man, cause his entire career seems to be built on dishing out the stuff.

    Anyway, props to Monique and Eva on Hannity and Colmes. Its not often someone doesnt cower into Hannity's beratement. Hannity is the biggest douche on earth. First up, defending Dennis Hastert at all costs from any fall-out of a child-molestation-in-congress scandal. Next up: avoid talking about the Minutemen's actual activities at all costs with protestors.

  38. meh  

    avi looked really small and flustered.

    not that chris looked any better; i mean he was basically getting a handjob from bill the entire time.

  39. monique and eva  

    finally made columbia proud. nuff of this avi "i'm ashamed" bullshit. toe to toe with hannity, those two girls rocked that shit!

  40. video  

    I want video. Video.

  41. heh  

    Monique came off as the crazy (and I do mean crazy) left-ist that she is, but I have to give her credit for shutting Hannity up. "That's enough!" Priceless.

  42. where  

    is the video of monique on hannity and colmes? is there one?

  43. Anonymous

    What is wrong with you people?
    You guys took a big sh$t on the
    First Amendment. When did it become popular to use the tools
    of the fascist to prevent whom-
    ever from expressing their ideas?
    What's next Brown Shirts?
    Meaux

  44. Anonymous

    If I was to choose who to be in O'Reilly's tonights' show, I'd prefer to be as simple as Avi instead of being O'Reilly's little toy (Chris). O'Reilly is a tough dumb ass to be taken on a conversation. Avi did what any other student would have done. But Chris was a loser by just saying, "yes sir whatever you say, I need a brain to think for myself"
    Avi, you did good.

    • you dont understand.  

      Being a guesst on O'Reilly is not what you say it is about your rhetoric and delivery. If you actually watch the video, you will see that Ari was owned. O'Reilly's show is not about a meaningful conversation, its about reacting quickly and forcefully to what he says, in a confident manner. The people who watch his show will not wade through uncertain mumbling to try to find a rational argument.
      Don't quit your day job, Ari.

  45. left wing jihadist

    It's absolutely disgusting that Kulawik would say that he's afraid for his safety. Give me a fucking break. He kicked someone on stage and now he's afraid for HIS safety? Come on.

    And Mr. O'Reilly, please realize that after a riot, the president of the university actually has real work to do rather than "facing the cameras." PrezBo doesn't need to face the cameras. He just needs to handle the situation here. This is a Columbia issue -- just as long as us left-wing jihadists keep it at home.

  46. Yay, Avi!!  

    Iam so proud of you! it takes courage to stand up for what is right. people who can't do talk and you walked the talk tonight.

  47. video  

    of hannity and colmes please! avi is smart, too smart for o'reilly, and that's why he fucked up and kkkulawik looked good.

  48. ....  

    Good job Avi... O'Reilly looked absolutely ridiculous.

  49. vvvideo?  

    Bwoggie, do you have videos??

  50. Eva!

    Nice job Eva, way to stay calm, poised and respectful. bravo

  51. avi supporter

    so perhaps avi was caught off-guard a few times by pissed off o'reilly--he still looked good defending our school with crisp one-liners. again, i have never felt prouder to be associated with the blue and white.

  52. Anonymous

    please i want to see Eva at Hannity!

    Video Now Bwog!
    Please?!?

  53. mweh  

    I'm becoming increasingly convinced that Bwog is part of a vast left/right/chicken-wing conspiracy to withhold the truth in video form from Columbia Students...

    I'm oh so oppressed.

  54. Anonymous

    i applaud avi for defending columbia

  55. Anonymous

    Dear Chris Kulawik,

    You just went on Bill O'Reilly and sold your fellow students out. When asked if you thought that the failure of communication that occurred during the Gilchrist speech was the norm, you flatly said it was. In fact you stated that you believed that Avi Zenilman was being extremely irresponsible when he said that what occurred was largely an isolated incident.

    Anyone who has gone to Columbia will be able to tell you that the events that transpired during the Gilchrist event are not indicative of the larger population of Columbia. For you to even espouse that sort of nonsense is to me, offensive and irresponsible.

    You brought up the racial remarks assailed at a minority student that served in the military. Once again, I seem to recall the three students were members of the ISO; even then that incident involved three students.

    The homophobic/anti-Semitic graffiti; again, two students.

    At worst we have a handful of bad eggs and a basket full of some of the world's most brilliant minds, yet it has become your prerogative to tarnish the reputation of the University. Yes, we all know that University administrators have had a slow response to these allegations and issues and that is regrettable, but this is completely irrelevant to the 23,000 students that are not part of a Kool-aid drinking, "fascist-liberal-anarchist" minority that is supposedly being indoctrinated by university professors. We were not the perpetrators of hate and the free flowing dialogue between disparate ideologies has in my experience been the norm. For you to make such a blanket statement to the world about Columbia University was irresponsible. Were you being disingenuous so as to not incur the wrath of FOX commentators I would understand somewhat, and if you do truly believe that disruptive protest is the norm, it is my opinion that you are by all accounts incorrect.

    When asked about the motivation for bringing Gilchrist to Columbia you responded that you wanted to give the student body the opportunity to listen and respond to different views. Surely, you and I agree that hijacking the stage was poor decision making, but I question if you are able to understand that the content of what Gilchrist and Stewart were speaking of (or planning to speak on) was such an abominable position to the protestors that it was obvious that there was no room for debate and that very few wanted to hear what he had to say. You yourself have openly criticized the university for their choices of invited speakers saying that you are outraged by the extension of an invitation and that allowing them to speak gives such speakers more legitimacy; that has been your position for Qaddafi, Ahmadinejad, Chavez, etc. So perhaps you might identify with the outrage that protestors felt at the invitation of Gilchrist that you (and most people felt) at the invitation of the aforementioned. In those cases I think you, me, almost everyone, that their beliefs and actions are so offensive to a group of people that we would not give their point of view 2-seconds of rational discourse and would express our outrage given the opportunity. That is exactly what happened at the Gilchrist event. When presented with a speaker that is so far from what students believe as having a legitimate voice and is so intimately tied to who they are as individuals, there is no listening and only responding. The difference however is that with Gilchrist, things got out of hand and the students pursued a means of expression that is regrettable. Isolated incident that got out of hand; not a widespread assault of free speech.

    I’d like to remind you of the 2003 Iraq War protests that occurred on Lowe Steps. There was a protest and a protest against the protest (in usual Columbia form). There was a exchange of passionate ideas and beliefs and there was no incident, nobody’s voice was silenced.

    I’d like to remind you of the 2006 Columbia College graduation commencement protest against Senator John McCain. Again, a peaceful protest, during which a fairly successful campus and internet discussion arose. The discussion pages were RIDDLED with ad hominem attacks against protestors, I will give you examples:

    Kate Mahoney,

    Oh Kate, you also come from a spoiled upbringing. You also got indoctrinated in the ways of elite. And to make yourself feel good you oppress others with your intolerance of other ideas. but keep up the work, because of people like you the voice of liberals is subdued and you hate is evident.. \Shame on you... Hater
    Bob Kerry (CC '06)

    -------------------------------------------------------
    Laura Cordetti,

    You come from wealthy family. You are pampered and have no idea what the real world is like. Ive got an idea, give up all your money and get a 60 hour a week job. But please stop preaching you spoiled BRAT who has nothing better to do...
    -- Laur is spoiled rich girl (CC '06)
    -------------------------------------------------------
    Kim Sue,

    Please dont "enter the world". Please spare us your agenda on hate.. You hate all who disagree with you. You hate all who speak up for what they believe but you dont.... KIM SUE YOU ARE A HATER
    -- KIMSUEHATES (CC '06)
    -------------------------------------------------------
    Laura Cordetti - GET A LIFE and get a job too. You poor thing!
    -- Tom (Contributor)

    This is surely not the intellectual discourse that you were hoping to observe at Columbia, and it raises the point that “liberal jihadists” are not the only ones guilty of vitriol nor are non-liberals not free/afraid to speak their minds.

    Chris, I believe you owe your fellow students an apology for publicly lambasting them and your university to the entire nation. While Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity exploded with vast generalizations and slander against the student body of Columbia, you did not speak up and defend us. You sat there, nodding your head in agreement, ignoring the high quality of education that Columbia University has provided you with. You wondered why there have been so many negative attacks against you online and behind your back; it is because you’ve failed to come to the defense of your university and your peers.

    Yours truly,
    Stephen Wang ’06.

    • Rational Republican  

      While Chris has made some caustic comments, the really jarring comments came from Bill O'Reilly recently:

      "OK, no spin: Columbia University is a disgrace. It is not interested in free speech or learning, it is a place of indoctrination. Let us call it the 'University of Havana, North.'"

      ...

      "And places that allow these hooligans free reign, like Columbia University must be held to account. Alumni should stop all donations to Columbia."

      The real question here is: why don't we invite O'Reilly to speak here? This can obviously end in one of a few ways:

      1) he doesn't come to speak, which would be a victory for us as we reaffirm our position as open while he proves himself as a cowardice

      2) he comes to speak, which would, if handled properly, open a channel of communication and prove us open.

      Thus, Chris, why don't you invite Mr. O'Reilly to speak? If we really are intolerant, deprave liberal fascists, this would be the best venue.

    • stephen  

      this letter is so innaccurate, misleading and wrong in so many ways that it is impossible to adress it wholesale on this site becuase of its length. if you don't think the atmosphere on this campus is now poisonous for conservatives, i want some of what you are smoking

  56. Something the

    members of the Chicano caucus seem to forget is that the illegal immigrants are not the victims. You keep blaming the 3000 deaths in the desert, which I might add are all tragic, on the minutemen. They havent killed one person. You fail to put the blame where it rightfully belongs, on the government of Mexico.

    First and foremost in this arguement is the fact that they are coming here illegally. Mexico currently has the highest visa quota of any country with regards to legal immigration. Legal immigrants are wonderful addition to our society, to our country and to our culture. What on earth possesses you to believe that anyone from Mexico should be allowed to emigrate to the United States without regards for our laws. This is the main contention that most in America have with illegal immigration, the fact that it is illegal. Our laws are flaunted, our school are taxed, and these new illegal immigrants come here with expectations that previous generations of immigrants, legal immigrants, never harbored.

    The problem stems from the government in Mexico which fails to provide a system which accounts for all of its people. Mexico has more than enough natural resources and industry to support its people, and to have a flourishing economy, but rampant corruption (which is a staple of life and in many cases the only way to get things done, unfortunately) incalculable inefficiency, and stubborness all leads to the poverty which exists.

    Solve this problem and then we wont have a problem with illegal immigration, we wont have people dying in the desert, and wont be having this discussion any more.

    Again, the question I pose to this group is, why are the inordinate amount of visas that are granted to Mexican citizens each year not enough.

    By the way, I think I know something of which I speak, I lived in Mexico City for a number of years. This I say before you go off on your this person is a racist rant. A person can have an opinion that is contrary to yours without being a racist, can believe that illegal immigration is just that illegal and should be stopped, especially in light of the fact that we have a large number of people coming from Mexico who went through the process, waited their time and came here the legal way without being xenophobic.

    The worst part is that most illegal immigrants are nice people, just trying to make a living that their government doesnt allow them to and would prefer to stay in their own country if the opportunity presented itself.

    One last question, why can the US baseball team or soccer team go to play a game against a hispanic team in Los Angeles and have urine and batteries and glass throw at them and the national anthem booed, when they are playing in their own country. Dont you think this does a lot to incur the wrath of the public and push sentiment against those perpetrating the act.

  57. well  

    #69: Of course the most scathing comments came from O'Reilly: it's what he does for a living(!)-but the fact is that Kulawik played along with those comments. I agree with Stephen that Kulawik essentially sold out his University by making no attempt to disagree with the sweeping, scathing generalizations made by O'Reilly. And I fail to understand how inviting O'Reilly to speak is the "real" question.

© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.