Bill O'Reilly
Updated on Tuesday July 24, 2007
Bill O’Reilly, that master of Fox News punditry, long ago put a signature spin on his commentary—proudly claiming to dwell in a realm free of spin, the magical "no-spin zone." And since 1996, America has had to endure the scourge that is his show, The O’Reilly Factor. Spinster O’Reilly has spent nearly ten years playing the part of impartial media correspondent, reassuring Americans that he is a centrist independent. The problem is, while Bil may claim to be independent and impartial, his views skew way to the right. So pair a guy who refuses to even entertain opinions that differ from his own (O’Reilly’s a fan of cutting a guest’s mike when the guest offends him) with uber-conservative commentary, and what do you get? Little more than a megaphone for insensitive, combative, conservative drivel.
Let’s be honest about what The O’Reilly Factor truly is: a right-wing spin zone.
 Perhaps the most egregious recent example of Bill O’Reilly’s heartless punditry is his tasteless attack on Cindy Sheehan. Sheehan, the mother of an American soldier killed in Iraq, garnered national media attention when she protested outside President Bush’s Crawford, Texas ranch in an attempt to get a meeting with the President. O’Reilly accused Sheehan of being " in bed with the radical left," including – believe it or not – those dastardly "9-11 families." He went on to claim that Sheehan had changed her story and her feelings toward President Bush in order to create a more compelling news hook. All this from a man who purports to support the troops – but only when their families don’t turn their "private, personal pain into a public circus" – in other words, when they don’t share their grief in an attempt to prevent other families from having to suffer similar loss.
William James O’Reilly, Jr., was born on September 10, 1949, in New York City. His father was an oil company accountant and his mother was a homemaker. While O’Reilly was born in Manhattan, he grew up on Long Island in Levittown—or was it Westbury? So begins O’Reilly’s spin. His story? According to Bill, he was a child of humble beginnings, having grown up in modest Levittown, NY, a working-class suburb on Long Island. It doesn’t take much to debunk O’Reilly’s hard-knock yarn, only a report from his mother, who says that he was in fact raised in Westbury, a much more affluent suburb a few miles away. O’Reilly, quick on the uptake, asserted that the confusion lay in mere semantics, and that he was born in the Westbury section of Levittown. Nice answer, Bill, but unfortunately there’s no such place. It’s like saying you grew up in the Manhattan section of the Bronx.
At least he’s got a modest education to fall back on – or so he maintains in the constant woe-is-me retrospectives that made up his book The O’Reilly Factor, which was published in 2000, as well as a good chunk of his show. Spin on, Bill. From his"deprived" beginnings on Long Island, O’Reilly went to a private high school, after which he attended the private Marist College in Poughkeepsie, New York, graduating with a B.A. in history in 1971, spending his junior year studying at Queen Mary College, University of London. O’Reilly then went to Miami to teach English and history at Monsignor Pace High School, a suburban parochial school. And all on his father’s modest salary of $35,000 a year, which O’Reilly constantly refers to as an example of how his family had to scrimp and save to get by. This may be true, but when his dad retired in 1978, $35,000 was a good living. In fact, that’s worth roughly $92,000 adjusted for inflation. So O’Reilly may not have been rich, but he wasn’t a member of the proletariat either.
O’Reilly made his entrée into the wide world of spin when he enrolled in Boston University’s broadcast journalism program, receiving a Master of Science degree in 1976. O’Reilly’s career began with writing for several local newspapers and alternative weeklies (yes, alt-weeklies). After a journalism internship at the Miami Herald, it was off to WNEP-TV in Scranton, Pennsylvania. O’Reilly then went to Dallas, Texas, to work for WFAA-TV, where he won the Dallas Press Club Award. At KMGH-TV in Denver, Colorado, O’Reilly won his first Emmy and was launched into the world of big-headed stardom.
His career took an important turn in 1980 when he began working for WCBS-TV in New York. After winning a second Emmy for his investigation of city corruption, he was promoted to CBS news correspondent. After a three-year stint as a correspondent for ABC World News Tonight from 1986-1989, O’Reilly took a job as correspondent for the tabloid Inside Edition. He quickly moved up to anchor, and so began his glamorous career in "infotainment."
O’Reilly defended his turn to tabloid journalism the way he defends all of his questionable behavior – by lying about it. This time, O’Reilly claimed that his work for Inside Edition was legitimate because the show had won the distinguished Peabody Award. Eventually, O’Reilly (who later said the show had won multiple awards) was called out by none other than Al Franken, who noted that the show had never won a single Peabody, let alone many. Despite a valiant attempt at backpedaling, O’Reilly’s spin had been caught on tape and the media wasn’t afraid to expose it. Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) and The Washington Post report that Inside Edition won a Polk Award (not a Peabody), and it was for reporting done after O’Reilly left the show.
After years with Inside Edition, O’Reilly decided to try his hand at writing. Then, following the publication of his novel, Those Who Trespass: A Novel of Murder and Television(1998)—which included some rather off-putting pseudo-pornography—he enrolled in Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, where he received a Master’s degree in Public Administration (MPA) in 1996. Then FOX came a-knocking. Roger Ailes tapped O’Reilly to host The O’Reilly Report on the then-new FOX News Channel. O’Reilly’s crude style, abuse of his guests, and misinformation caught on so well with right-wingers that in 1998 The O’Reilly Report was renamed The O’Reilly Factor and moved to an even better timeslot so O’Reilly could spread his tripe more widely.
So what’s so bad about The O’Reilly Factor? Well, for starters, there is the alarming hypocrisy of one of the right wing’s foremost talking heads claiming himself as a spin-free neutral journalist when, in fact, crying "spin" is how he fends off what the rest of us might call "fact." In June 2004, O’Reilly opened his show by criticizing The New York Times and other newspapers for running misleading headlines that implied there was no link between Iraq and al Qaeda. He then followed with a clip of 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean saying: "There is no evidence that we can find whatsoever that Iraq or Saddam Hussein participated in any way in attacks on the United States – in other words, on 9/11. What we do say, however, is there were contacts between Iraq and Saddam Hussein, excuse me, al-Qaeda." O’Reilly frantically stopped the clip, explaining it was the wrong sound bite, and proceeded to paraphrase the last part of the clip, but ignored the part that did not mesh with his criticism of the Times. Georgetown law professor David Cole, who had been invited to give commentary, was listening on the line from Washington, and was shocked that O’Reilly had brazenly cut a sound bite that directly contradicted his thesis. When Cole challenged him on it, O’Reilly exploded, calling Cole an S.O.B. and declaring he would never be invited back.
O’Reilly decries any opinion that conflicts with his own as hateful liberal spin. Moreover, it’s almost always liberals or moderates who get hammered on his show. (Check out his phrasing of his lead story in 2000: "Is Al Gore running for president on a quasi-socialistic platform – in this case, socialism being defined as work and production being supervised by the government?") In reality, O’Reilly is just another foot soldier in the FOX News Channel’s assault on fair and balanced media in this country.
Not unlike the station for which he works, O’Reilly has tried to deceive the public about his political affiliation, but both his political history and his political views clarify his proclivity for partisan politics. Despite his claims to have always been an independent and a centrist, when someone dug up his voter registration, on which the Republican box was clearly checked, O’Reilly eventually admitted that he was registered as a Republican, but claimed that this was due to a clerical error (Talk of the Nation, 9/2/2003). Take a look at O’Reilly’s registration form – it’s pretty clear which box is checked, but who knows? Maybe an election official checked it for him.
O’Reilly has been a strong and vocal supporter of the war on terror and the war in Iraq. So much so that he was willing to stand firmly behind the administration’s insistence upon the existence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq. He was so certain that on Good Morning America he said, "If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it’s clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush Administration again." He confirmed this on July 9, 2003, on Factor. Finally, in 2004, the apology came—grudgingly. Returning to Good Morning America, O’Reilly shuffled his feet and looked at his toes and told the American people he was sorry, half-heartedly acknowledging, "Well, my analysis was wrong and I’m sorry. I was wrong. I’m not pleased about it at all… I think all Americans should be concerned about this, for their families and themselves, that our intelligence isn’t as good as it should be," he said. Though there was certainly no follow-through on his promise "never to trust the Bush administration again," he admitted that he had become "much more skeptical about the Bush administration." Of course, in typical O’Reilly fashion, he couldn’t let it die with that, adding, "What do you want me to do, go over and kiss the camera?" The day after his act of contrition, O’Reilly was back at it, telling his FOX audience that the controversy was cooked up by the "left-wing press" who "used my words to hammer the president." He reminded his audience that the liberal media "has made dozens of mistakes itself and continues to deny that the world is a better place because Saddam is gone."
A different call for an O’Reilly apology has so far gone unheeded. Students at Brown University have passed a resolution calling on O’Reilly to apologize after airing an exposé of "Sex Power God," which is an annual party held by the student group Queer Alliance on the Rhode Island campus. The party, from which approximately 20 people were hospitalized, was infiltrated by a Factor correspondent with a video camera, and drew the conservative pundit’s self-righteous wrath. O’Reilly spent a full hour condemning the party and its sponsors on his radio broadcast. "You would have been safer in Baghdad than on the campus of Brown University,” he said. O’Reilly also claimed the root of the problem to be that the “pinheads up at Brown, they are a very liberal administration.”
O’Reilly distorted the truth to support his case against Brown administrators and students. He reported that the party was thrown with “direct university funding,” for example, even though all of the money for the event was raised privately. (The students did make use of one university projector.) What upset students most, however, was that O’Reilly aired the footage of the festivities on national television without blurring the faces of the students, who, they contended, were entitled to a measure of privacy when socializing with their peers.
On December 8, 2005, O’Reilly had the honor of receiving both of Keith Olbermann’s “Worst Person in the World” nominations. For the runner-up slot, O’Reilly won for reminding his audience that he "didn’t put Abu Ghraib pictures on this broadcast.” And was “the only television journalist not to do so." And the gem that sealed up the win? O’Reilly’s utter hysteria over the liberal war on Christmas, led by the "anti-Christian forces in this country" trying to "diminish and denigrate the holiday.” The distinction of “Worst Person in the World” was officially awarded for O’Reilly’s promise to "use all the power that I have on radio and television to bring horror into the world of people who are trying to do that."
In fact, O’Reilly’s spent much of December 2005 fighting the good fight against those destroyers of Christmas. On the December 2 broadcast of The Radio Factor, O’Reilly lashed out at Jon Stewart for the Daily Show’s “recent” attack on Christmas. Claiming the clip in question had aired the night before, he used it as just one more example of the left’s full fledged assault on the holiday. The only problem, which Jon Stewart subtly pointed out a few nights later, was that the clip had run a full year earlier. His evidence? Samantha Bee, the correspondent featured in the clip, is now eight months pregnant, which she plainly is not in the clip.
As O’Reilly has gotten older, he’s also gotten more paranoid. In September 2006, he released Culture Warrior, a book that sought to expose what O’Reilly sees as the most important, divisive conflict impacting America today. No it isn’t Iraq or the war on terror. It’s the culture war that O’Reilly is worried about. “On the one side of the battlefield are the armies of the traditionalists like me,” he writes near the beginning of the book, “people who believe the United States was well founded and has done enormous good for the world. On the other side are the committed forces of the secular-progressive movement that want to change America dramatically: mold it in the image of Western Europe.” What follows is a bizarre, rambling account of how the S-P movement is seeking to undermine traditional America—an account in which O’Reilly completely fails to coherently define this mysterious movement, let alone explain its motives.
The result, like much of O’Reilly’s previous cultural “analysis,” is a hodgepodge of railing against “elitists,” unconvincing claims of left-wing media bias, and a healthy dose of his usual Hollywood-bashing. O’Reilly gives the unconvinced reader very little reason to take him seriously. As one reviewer put it: “No matter what this apostle of mediocrity and banality says, sparkling water and George Clooney are not menaces to the American way of life.” (Read the Campus Progress review of Culture Warrior here.)
Even as he’s carried on his futile struggle to hide his partisanship, O’Reilly has become increasingly open with his less-than-tolerant views on homosexuality, and often utilizes bizarre analogies to drive his “points” home. If children didn’t suffer from having nontraditional parents (that is, from being raised by gay parents), he once argued, then “wouldn’t nature then make it that anybody could get pregnant by eating a cupcake?” More recently, he expressed outrage over the San Diego Padres’ decision to host a gay pride night and a hat giveaway for kids during the same game. It was “insane,” he fumed, for the Padres to “cluster” gays and kids together thus allowing for a situation in which “thousands of gay adults showed up and commingled with straight families.” And, speaking of insane, he became truly irked by an L.A. Times article criticizing immigration laws that prevent U.S. citizens in same-sex relationships from sponsoring their partners for a green cards. He responded to on his radio show by invoking terrifying images of a world in which “people in love with three women” can sponsor them all for citizenship, and in which straight men can say “Hey, I’m gay. You gotta let in Lenny, my friend over here.” Oh, and he also recently spoke out about the dangers of lesbian gangs. For someone who claims that gay marriage is “not a big issue” to him, O’Reilly sure seems preoccupied with the topic of homosexuality.
Here is just a sampling of some of our favorite examples of O’Reilly’s misinformation, spin, and genuine insensitivity (all quotes from The O’Reilly Factor are from FOX News transcripts):
On the War on Terror
"The Bush administration is being disciplined and methodical. That is very encouraging. They are lining up world support for the action America is going to take." [The O’Reilly Factor, 9/17/2001]
"There should be little wiggle room for the Taliban government. They should be given a short deadline in which to hand over bin Laden. If they don’t, the U.S. should bomb the Afghan infrastructure to rubble – the airport, the power plants, their water facilities, and the roads. This is a very primitive country. And taking out their ability to exist day to day will not be hard." [The O’Reilly Factor, 9/17/2001]
"Remember, the people of any country are ultimately responsible for the government they have. The Germans were responsible for Hitler. The Afghans are responsible for the Taliban. We should not target civilians. But if they don’t rise up against this criminal government, they starve, period[emphasis added]..." [The O’Reilly Factor, 9/17/2001]
On Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq
(To Colonel Robert Maginnis): "Colonel, if weapons of mass destruction aren’t found, your reputation, my reputation – because I will have to apologize because I bought into it, I bought into it." [The O’Reilly Factor, 4/22/2003]
"And if Bush lied – if he lied – I’ll be the first one to hang him, OK? But there’s no evidence of that presented by the best people we can find." [The O’Reilly Factor, 7/7/2003]
On Abu Ghraib
"But Abu Ghraib was interesting. I got criticized by the New York Times for not running the pictures. And I told the audience, I’ll tell you what happened. I’m not running them because I know—you know, we go all over the world. And I know as soon as I run them, al-Jazeera’s going to pick them off The Factor, throw them on there and whip up anti-U.S.—and more people are going to get killed. So I’m not going to do it. You want to see them, you can see them someplace else. Not here." [The O’Reilly Factor, 5/12/2005]
"We already know what happened at Abu Ghraib. And people are going to prison because of it. Clearly, more pictures of Abu Ghraib help the terrorists, as do Geneva Convention protections and civilian lawyers. So there’s no question the ACLU and the judges who side with them are terror allies." [The O’Reilly Factor, 7/25/2005]
On the ACLU
"If the ACLU ever wants money, it should contact the al Qaeda fundraisers. No organization in America enables terrorism as much as the ACLU, period. It is putting your life in danger. And that is no exaggeration. Unfortunately, there’s nothing we can do about it. No way to stop it. The ACLU operates within the law and uses the legal system to oppose the war on terror. And there are enough loony judges around to give that organization power, especially here in New York City and in San Francisco." [The O’Reilly Factor, 8/4/2005]
On Homosexuality
"I recognize that homosexuality in America is going to be controversial forever. That’s always going to be that way, and no matter what you do or I do, the controversy is going to exist. So I always tell gays to be as low keyed as possible, to be as discreet as possible. And if I had a gay son or daughter, I would tell them in high school, don’t let anybody know you’re gay.… That’s my advice to all homosexuals, whether they’re in the Boy Scouts, or in the Army or in high school – shut up, don’t tell anybody what you do, your life will be a lot easier." [The O’Reilly Factor, 7/7/2000]
Illustration: August J. Pollak
--------
Comments
|
!
Without a doubt, I lean to the left on economic issues, and am slightly to moderately liberal with regards to social issues. However, I enjoy watching conservatives like Tucker and Scarborough on MSNBC because they do not hide the fact that they lean to the Right. Moreover, they do not let their leanings overwhelm the show and cause them to cut people off that don’t agree with them. The 8:00p.m time slot is the tough one for me, because the only options you really have are the Left-Wing blow-hard Olbermann—who is understandably trying to balance out the tilted time-slot caused by the Right-Wing blow-hard O’Reilly. The problem is that while it is understandable, it is not justifiable. The hypocrisy of so many on the Left equals that of O’Reilly unless the come right out and say: ‘We are Left-Wingers.’ Therefore, Olbermann does not garner any respect or ratings from me. Similarly, this article demonstrates the far-left leanings of The Center for American Progress. So, while I do not care for such partisanship (and that is partially a result of my being closer to the center), at least they are not proclaiming themselves to be anything but partisan. Still, I think they try to pass themselves off to be somewhat objective, when there is a bias as clear as glass. But please, can we get some journalism that truly is objective and fair? Those of us who are independent of either party are waiting for OUR time slot containing a centrist, objective, fair pundit that can see both sides of an argument. The partisanship in this country has reached the level of vampirism.
— michael - Jul 26, 01:38 PM - #You truly have to be smoking some funky ganga to equate Olbermann with O’Reilly. Olbermann conducts himself with class, and while he takes an editorial stance on his show, in the form of his “Special Comment” segment, it doesn’t constantly bleed into his reporting, day in and day out. Nor do you ever hear him calling people “stupid”, “morons”, “idiot”, or saying “shut up” every 30 seconds, and then cutting someone’s mic.
Get real.
— ShamRockNRoll - Jul 26, 02:27 PM - #I really, really want to believe liberals are smarter than this…mostly I want to believe this because I am one of them. But, if you are one of them SHAMROCKNROLL, then we are in trouble.
Yes, Olbermann is more amicable as a host; yes, O’Reilley is a jerk; however, Olbermann’s show is seriously biased because of the manner it is produced. Just like Fox News brings on strong conservatives and weak liberals—thus, making the liberal argument out to look mistaken if not down right ridiculous, Olbermann’s show is not something I can stomach because of the similar tactics. He ALWAYS finds military people and pundits that have the worst things to say about the Bush administration, and he will serve them softballs across the heart of the plate. And, when he does bring a conservative on, he grills them like detainees at a US secret prison.
Some people enjoy this, however, as someone who wants to hear the strongest argument from both sides, I find this type of commentary absurd. I can talk to my liberal friends if I just want to hear an echo of my own thoughts.
Anyway, that is how I feel. Bill is a right-wing zealot with a mountaintop from which to shout…and unwitting masses of people at which to shout, but I am not interested in hearing Left-Wing propaganda either. I believe liberal principles can stand on their own merit.
— michael - Jul 26, 08:24 PM - #I like O’Reilly. I also like Limbaugh, Medved, and Hannity. I LOVE Savage—he’s a real trip. You see, for a couple of years now I thought I had problems and was going to shell out some serious dough on getting professional therapy. But after I discovered “talk” radio I know I’ve got NOTHING to worry about. So if any of the above read this, or even anybody who actually believes what they say reads this, keep up the good work. You’re making me feel REALLY good about myself.
— Paul T - Jul 26, 09:40 PM - #Didn’t even understand you Paul. Sorry, but I see know argument, and I am honestly not even sure what your position is…however, I would suggest shelling out a little bit of money for some of that help…if for nothing else than to acquire the ability to construct a cogent thought.
— michael - Jul 26, 10:15 PM - #There are obviously some people out there with the IQ of a backwards child who didn’t understand what I meant. So in simple terms for all you “talk” radia fans: I THOUGHT I WAS CRAZY, BUT COMPARED TO O’REILLY ET.AL I’M SANE! Got it now?
— Paul T - Jul 27, 10:06 PM - #Yeah, sorry Paul…I have two Master’s degrees and am working on a PhD, and still couldn’t understand the point you were trying to make. Let me share a little lesson in English grammar and simple logic: when you say, “So if any of the above read this, or even anybody who actually believes what they say reads this, keep up the good work. You’re making me feel REALLY good about myself.” This statement was either a profoundly stupid thing to say, or it was simply written in a profoundly stupid way. If you meant by, “any of the above,” the commentators you listed, you really should explicate that fact. It sounded like you were referring to the blog discussion—which would have made no sense. It is also a horribly naive (and dangerous) thing to think that these right-wing speakers do not believe what they say. But, there is even a broader point, since you forced me to take you out to the woodshed: what kind of substantive point were you trying to make? The answer is either nothing, or something so superficial as to exist on the same plane as those you were criticizing. Why can’t people understand when you wrestle with the pigs, in their filth, you get dirty too? Moreover, what does it say about you that you listen to conservative commentators to make you feel better about yourself? If you were serious, I feel sorry for you; if you were joking, please don’t waste our time, okay?
— michael - Jul 28, 11:14 AM - #Michael. Thanks for giving me a laugh. If you have a masters degree and you’re working on a Phd, DON’T advertise it. That’s a REALLY good commercial for America’s education system! How do you manage to get out of bed in the morning? This is more fun than O’Reilly, Hannity, Savage et.al. Get a girlfriend, a wife, or at least stop watching Star Trek….......
— paul T - Jul 29, 07:22 PM - #it’s always the uneducated that scoff at the educated. When you learn something about what you are talking about, then we can have a real conversation. Have you noticed that you have not made one substantive point in any of your comments. I am done going back and forth with you. You can have the last word, I know people like you love that sort of thing…so take your best shot.
— michael - Jul 29, 10:16 PM - #O’reilly claims he is educated. Many times I’ve heard Savage claim that he’s educated. Unfortunatley, being well educated does not equate to intellegence. Just about everybody I’ve met in America has a degree of some kind, but a lot of them have never heard of the Somme, and think that Bombay is part of a B52. (God alone knows what they would make of Mombai). Americans are no more or less intellegent than the rest of the world, but with low standards you get poor results. The point I am making is; O’Reilly has a degree, Savage has a degree, but how can anyone in their right mind call them intellegent?
— Mike Moran - Aug 1, 09:43 PM - #Mike,
It is refreshing to hear a voice of reason to revitalize this conversation with something more than immature name-calling.
I agree with almost everything you say. Whether or not education makes you ‘intelligent’ depends upon your operational definition of intelligent. If it is a good institution, an education would indicate (assuming you didn’t cheat, and retained some information acquired) some degree of competence in the subject-matter. Though, I agree that this does not necessarily translate into intelligence.
I guess I dichotomize it in my mind by separating knowledge from wisdom and rationality. I agree that the latter is not a characteristic of O’Reilly, Savage, and the rest. However, I do think they possess the former. I do not think it is fair to call O’Reilly stupid—rather, I think he is misguided and unwise with regards to how he implements, and infers from, the knowledge he possesses. I think this is a relevant distinction to make.
One final point: While I agree with the point you are trying to make, I think that there is an unfortunate shift occurring in the United States. With the increase in people acquiring degrees, and the decrease in University requirements involving the humanities and arts, people are more educated, but less aware of the elements and complex interaction of human institutions that comprise society. Essentially what I am driving at, is that simply because one has a degree does not make one qualified to speak on any subject. If you knew me, you would know that I readily admit my ignorance in a great many subjects. This is basic humility that every human being should possess. All I ask in return, and I do not think this is unjustified, is that others who do not possess the BASIC tools to make judgments in the areas of ethics, religion, political theory and international relations, and psychology (which are the subjects in which I have degrees) please demonstrate similar humility. I am not for unquestioned authority or elitism; however, I do think the pendulum can swing too far into failing to respect more credible sources than oneself. Not everyone should be acting as an authority on these subjects. I question professors under which I do research and study, but I defer to them when I am not knowledgeable on any particular subject matter. Odds are, they are right, and I am wrong.
What do you think?
— michael - Aug 2, 12:33 PM - #Mike and Michael, look up the definition of “satire” and “irony.” Paul touched on both to reveal, probably inadvertently, that millions of people are fed up with the hacks on the left AND the right and simply want solutions based on the closest thing to objective truth we can find.
Since no group has a monopoly on the truth, O’Reilly and Olberman both hinder the educational process—although each are useful to balance the knee-jerk bias of each other and keep their base motivated. The fact that Olberman is more polished makes little difference, although he’s typically not as abusive as O’Reilly.
Perhaps Paul could have more carefully constructed his message, but lots of us “got it” anyway despite his apparent bias.
— Steve - Aug 22, 06:28 PM - #Truth just is.
Education will always promote peace, always.
War is the way of the vain and the greedy.
Just let it all go, it will return ten fold.
It’s called love, and ever cruelty will crowd it.
— John - Aug 24, 03:24 PM - #A small point – but let me settle this argument about O’Reilly growing up in Westbury or Levittown. This is a non-issue – O’Reilly’s characterizattion of his childhood home is correct. There is a good-sized Levitt development on the border of Westbury – built in the late 40’s. I moved about 2 blocks away in 1950 and most of my friends lived there. The developement bordered a hamlet called New Cassel (where I lived). New Cassel was/is “gritty” – look up its demographics on the web. Westbury itself was never upscale – mostly blue-collar, except for the northern end which had some middle-class neighborhoods. The kids I went to school with were children from blue-collar families. I have tried to find the “private” high school O’
— Jack Ludwig - Oct 13, 08:12 AM - #Reilly wernt to, but have been unsucessful. I suspect it was one of the nearby Catholic high schools – like Bishop O’Laughlin – hardly, an exclusive “private” high school – just a Catholic school that relied on parental fees and contributions to keep the door open.
I have no bone to pick here – didn’t even know who O’Reilly was until I stumbled on an internet reference to my old boyhood home.
Again,Yawners!!I’m Basically Conservative.
— John - Oct 27, 12:09 AM - #I’m Pro Gun;Pro Death Penalty;Less Governmental Interferrence!!
However,In The Past Few Years,I’ve Learned To Distance Myself From O’Reilly;Coulter;Savage;etal.!!
While I Long ago and Far away Lost Favor With The Left,I’m Equally Losing Favor with The right!!
Plus,What Is It about Celebrity Irish Catholics That Makes Them So Loudmouthed Loonies??
Examples:Rosie O’Donnell and Alec Baldwin On The Left
and Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity On The Right!!
FYI:Before Someone Accuses Me of Being Anti Irish,I Want You To Know I’m Tenth Generation Scots-Irish and Damned Proud Of it!!
We Were Here Long Before They Were!!
FYI-2:Read James Webb’s“Born Fighting:How The scots-Irish Shaped America”.
Wer’e A Diverse and Proud and Stubborn Bunch:Johnny Cassh;Robert Mitchum;Loretta Lynn;Reba McEntire;
John Wayne and Jimmy stewart To Name A Few!!
Anyway People,Quit Taking O’Reilly seriously!!
Pull Back The Curtains And You’ll Find A Midget Pushing Buttons!!
if you readers really were educated, you’d apply the same standards to both Olbermann and O’Reilly. Are their arguments based on evidence? Are they using accurate premises to form a valid conclusion? If the premises are false or distorted in the slightest, the conclusions won’t be valid.
— Skip - Jun 22, 03:03 PM - #O’Reilly’s arguments are invariably based on inaccurate premises, which obviously doesn’t bother the extreme right—after all, contrary to all evidence, they overwhelmingly believe the earth was created in six literal days 10,000 years ago. Democrats, unlike Republicans, aren’t interested in spin, mythology or superstition—they prefer accurate evidence, and logic. For those who don’t know the difference, Olbermann would simply be a mirror image of O’Reilly.
Blow-Reilly’s “Factor (fiction)” is nothing but Crap-Tastic trash polished and served on flimsy paper plates. if anyone deserves the ‘pinhead of the week” award…NAY “Pinhead of a Lifetime” and “Hypocrite of the Hour” awards…it’s HIM!
— Scott - Oct 10, 12:19 AM - #