Media

O’Reilly Defends Against Media Attacks in Beck Interview: ‘That’s Not Right!’

Bill O‘Reilly’s new book, “Killing Lincoln,” has become a mega hit. But success breeds scrutiny, and now some have come out attacking the book as having inaccuracies.

That does not sit well with O’Reilly, who took those critics to task on Glenn Beck’s radio program Friday. The two conservative stalwarts opened the interview by bantering back and forth (Beck taking shots at O‘Reilly and O’Reilly poking fun at Beck for his latest book “The Snow Angel”) before O’Reilly outlined the controversy. He explained that a historian at the Ford‘s Theater is leading the charge against O’Reilly’s book and that when he invited her on his Fox show to confront him on it, she refused. So instead, he dealt head on with the charge, explaining one such “inaccuracy” and the story behind it.

He wasn’t done there. He also said the claim that the theater is refusing to carry the book is bogus.

Here‘s the first part of the interview in which O’Reilly:

The topic then turned to the media in general. Both hosts voiced their displeasure over the state of media in America. In fact, Beck played the segment from O‘Reilly’s show where O‘Reilly catches actress Ellen Barkin fibbing on Headline News about something O’Reilly supposedly said. Here’s the segment:

That got O’Reilly fired up.

He called the charge by Barking a “lie,” and in reference to the media said, “You have no standards anymore.” As an example, he pointed to discrepancies in regards to the number of protesters that showed up in New York City on Thursday. Regarding the power the media has to destroy conservatives, he added:”That’s not right!”

That part, including more banter between the two hosts, is below:

Comments (194)

1 2 3 4
  • Reload
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:20pm

    I’m more surprised that he is actually surprised that the liberal media would do something like that.

    Report Post » Reload  
    • GETLIFE
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:33pm

      Naw, he’s not surprised. Just FINALLY speaking out about it.

      Report Post » GETLIFE  
    • jnealer
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:43pm

      As someone with a history degree, I think I can safely say that the scrutiny that Bill’s book has garnered from the history field is due to the ongoing animosity that academic historians have with amateur historians. History, as an academic pursuit, is always under attack. The PhD level historians in academia defend their turf tooth and nail, and typically have very high standards for research and citations. There are methods and practices historians use (lord help you if you don’t use Chicago Style) both out of tradition and to maintain quality. I’m sure the historian at the Lincoln library was doing his best to point out the differences between the professional and the amateur, mostly for the benefit of history in general. Poor history (I”m looking at you, Liberal Fascism) just degrades the entire field.

      The press, on the other hand, jumped on this story because they enjoy the schadenfreude. Just like Fox or news radio would’ve done if a historian attacked a Chris Mathews book.

      Report Post »  
    • Sue Dohnim
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 4:16pm

      @Bill O‘Reilly,

      YES, Bill or at least one of your employees reading this, OBAMA is a MARXIST, understand. Obama is actually a “WESTERN MARXIST”, he should be called this term, NOT “Marxist”, using the term Marxist alone loses context as most people do not intellectually resonate with the term “MARXIST”. For Bill O”Reilly the term Marxist resonates or signifies Stalin or Mao, a very different type of Marxism. They controlled individuals and property through physical force. Therefore, calling Obama a Marxist without context causes Bill to reject it. However, if you label and brand Obama a “WESTERN MARXIST” and explain it in context, there is just no denial. It is crucial to understand that you must establish the context. The father of Western Marxism is Antonio Gramsci… who took Marx to another level..

      Western Marxism
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Marxism

      Report Post » Sue Dohnim  
    • Sue Dohnim
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 4:18pm

      @Bill O‘Reilly,

      ANTONIO GRAMSCI
      Gramsci is seen by many as one of the most important Marxist thinkers of the twentieth century, in particular as a key thinker in the development of Western Marxism. He wrote more than 30 notebooks and 3000 pages of history and analysis during his imprisonment. These writings, known as the Prison Notebooks, contain Gramsci’s tracing of Italian history and nationalism, as well as some ideas in Marxist theory, critical theory and educational theory associated with his name, such as:
      • Cultural hegemony as a means of maintaining the capitalist state. (a means to undermine it)
      • The need for popular workers’ education to encourage development of intellectuals from the working class.
      • The distinction between political society (the police, the army, legal system, etc.) which dominates directly and coercively, and civil society (the family, the education system, trade unions, etc.) where leadership is constituted through ideology or by means of consent.
      • “Absolute historicism”.
      • A critique of economic determinism that opposes fatalistic interpretations of Marxism.
      • A critique of philosophical materialism.
      Gramsci

      http://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci

      Antonio Gramsci (the ideological base for the modern left)
      http://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/index.htm

      Report Post » Sue Dohnim  
    • wigg
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 4:19pm

      She is living proof that plastic surgery is NEVER a good idea. Yuck

      Report Post » wigg  
    • Shiroi Raion
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 4:33pm

      Anne Hathaway and this one now. Don’t know who she is neither.

      Report Post » Shiroi Raion  
    • Heffe44
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 4:40pm

      There are two parts in the book and reference Lincoln in the Oval Office. It was not built till 1909! Is that the liberals attacking Bill or is that fact? Plus the museum in the basement of Ford Theater will not carry the book. It is the gift shop up stairs that is carrying the book. So Bill is lying about that.

      Report Post »  
    • freedomofspeech
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 5:44pm

      I think he is suprise, he is from the old school were a man’s word is his honor. Love is Bold Fresh book, and I never even watched him until about a year ago. Good for him, for standing up, however it now has become personal, they are attacking his character and for a man and women that live their lives who believes those ideas, ‘them fightin words’. I am very inerested to see how this plays out.

      Report Post »  
    • Vechorik
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 6:27pm

      O‘Reilly’s book has SIX errors in it. What part of that does O’Reilly not understand?
      Jeeesh!

      Report Post »  
    • A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 7:02pm

      It should be noted that Lincoln was a racist.

      See here.

      Another Big Lincoln Lie Exposed
      http://lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo211.html

      “… I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”

      Report Post »  
    • Viet Vet
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 8:42pm

      @Sue Dohnim

      NO,marxism is marxism. Mao and Stalin were communists. Communism is Lenin, and later Stalin’s application of marxism. Marxism is the ideology that underlies communism. Marxism must ultimately be enforced in a totalitarian regimen due to the intrinsic desire of man to be free.

      Report Post »  
    • Viet Vet
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 8:53pm

      Gramsci’s Grand Plan – by Father James Thornton
      Who are the Real Radicals? – by Jennifer King
      Blue State Culture – Anthony C. LoBaido
      Why There is a Culture War – by John Fonte
      Who is Antonio Gramsci? You better learn! – by Alberto Luzarraga

      Report Post »  
    • Viet Vet
      Posted on November 19, 2011 at 2:54am

      @A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right

      A prophet too.

      Report Post »  
    • Polwatcher
      Posted on November 19, 2011 at 5:53am

      The media has a large megaphone. The only way to confront their lies is to use a large megaphone too.

      Report Post »  
    • Sue Dohnim
      Posted on November 19, 2011 at 8:55am

      @VIET VET

      I don’t disagree but let me clarify..

      Bill OReilly denied that Obama was a Marxist because he thinks of “Marxista” as the old school
      hard core types. Obama is a derivative of Western Marxism, Gramsci and the Frankfurt School ideology. So, my point is that since most people do not understand Marxism, calling Obama a Marxist does not resonate and people dismiss it. If you clearly define “Western Marxism” as the root of Obamas ideology then the argument can be made. If you simply call him a Marxist, people reject it out of their own ignorance.

      Report Post » Sue Dohnim  
    • Vechorik
      Posted on November 19, 2011 at 9:30am

      In this interview Dr. Paul says he knows nothing about Bill O‘Reilly’s problems with Amazon — so O’Reilly saying that Dr. Paul knows about this — isn’t true at all. O’Reilly need to grow up.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=KEUUBPgLBRQ#t=501s

      Report Post »  
    • I support God's Israel!
      Posted on November 19, 2011 at 11:05am

      Does anyone remember the movie, “RED DAWN”? Soon, America will be divided, so much so, that the Conservatives will move NORTH and the Liberals will move South. All this is conjecture of course, but the fact remains, maybe that is the way it should be. Divide the country literally. Each has its own government and is voted on by the POPULAR VOTE and NOT by electorate, meaning, there are NO STATES…..just a NORTH and SOUTH. The people will vote 5 Senators or 11, or 15, so as to break a tie, if there is one to represent the NORTH or SOUTH. The people will elect 1 President for their NORTH or SOUTH, so there would be 2 Presidents for the USA. Then, both Presidents would work together for foreign trade and the like, but maintain each division as its own.
      Frankly, I am tired of the STATES theory AND I know it sounds socialist, but if you stop and think about it, STATES are a type of COLLECTIVISM. However, KEEP the Constitution – PERIOD.
      If someone sees problems with this (and there will be), please respond and enlighten me.

      It was JUST A THOUGHT. I am really tired of other states dictating to me, like not being able to cross state lines for things (regulations). And, I am tired of the minority telling the majority what to do. This way, EACH PERSON would have a right and the majority would have the vote. All the liberals can be comfortable living the way they want and we don’t have to worry about them ruining our plans to prosper.

      Report Post » I support God's Israel!  
    • I support God's Israel!
      Posted on November 19, 2011 at 11:08am

      Also, there may be problems militarily. There would have to be 2 militaries. If you stop and think about it, this country is so divided that to just take that division and group them together, makes more sense somehow. Yes, I know it is impossible, but it sounded good ;-)

      Report Post » I support God's Israel!  
    • Viet Vet
      Posted on November 19, 2011 at 12:21pm

      @Sue Dohnim

      Your point is well taken. Another way the left (and especially their media) take advantage of the ignorance of the populace where ideology is concerned is in the use of the dictionary definition of conservative and liberal. Take for example the Soviet Union, when the Bolsheviks took over Russia, and the marxist ideology (communism) was installed they were called liberals. But after the old Soviet Union fell and in the 1990′s they moved somewhat towards capitalism, the old stalwarts and advocates of communism were being called conservatives, notwithstanding that the ideology had not changed at all. The new reformers and advocates of capitalism of course were referred to as liberals. This is how propaganda works. If a dictionary definition is used today, one would have to look under marxism to define contemporary liberalism. The modern liberal dictionary definition would more closely describe conservatism or Classical Liberalism, which was the liberalism of the Founding Fathers. To wit: free-enterprise economy, limited government, property rights, religious freedom, firearms freedom, liberty loving, etc. As Nobel Laureate F. A. Hayek stated in his book: The Road To Serfdom.

      Report Post »  
    • jujubeebee
      Posted on November 19, 2011 at 7:58pm

      Bill O’Reilly is not surprised that the liberal media would do this. He has called them out on many occasions. I will be adding Ellen Barkin to the list of people whose movies I won’t support…..that is…if she actually has any! I think she is doing this to be highlighted on the news because otherwise people would not remember her. She is not all that special….either with her acting or her looks.

      Report Post »  
    • Sue Dohnim
      Posted on November 19, 2011 at 10:36pm

      @VIET VET

      You 100% nailed it.

      The left controls the narrative by manipulating language, words and history all filtered in a moral relativism and emotivism. Leaving “truth” in a morass of contextual ignorance which is absolutely necessary to process logic and reason.

      Using reason and logic when arguing with the contextually ignorant “Left” is like trying to reason with a five year old.

      Report Post » Sue Dohnim  
    • navypop
      Posted on November 20, 2011 at 7:24pm

      I read the book and enjoyed it . bet many do not know about all the lives lost looking for Booth.

      Report Post »  
    • junkmaninohio
      Posted on November 21, 2011 at 3:48pm

      I thought he would give her the benefit of the doubt. After all, who else would be looking out for you?

      Report Post »  
  • garyM
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:15pm

    I can see how someone would classify Ron Paul with the liberals because they sing the same song if you listen closely to their lyrics!

    Report Post »  
    • Caunotaucarius
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:45pm

      Then you are ignorant. If you were listening to the song you’d hear that both Republicans and Democrats use lyrics or rhetoric consistent with Marxist thought, called collectivism. Ron Paul is the only one with principles that will actually shrink government because he believes that Individualism is far superior to the collectivist thought process that tries to justify the evils they commit by saying it is for the greater good. “Well its for the greater good not to allow gays to marry because it hurts ”marriages”", which is to say that Gay people don’t have the same rights as everyone else. Or “It’ll be for the greater good of humanity if we destroy other nations so that the world is safe for Democracy” meaning others have no rights to free will but must be the slaves to the ideology we impose on them. You “conservatives” need to wake up and realize you’ve been singing the Socialist creed since the Neo-conservative movement’s founder Irving Kristol began to take over your Republican Party. Don’t be dopey collectivists try believing in real freedom.

      Report Post » Caunotaucarius  
    • Blackhawk1
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 4:00pm

      Ah yes Ron Paul….The King of earmarks. The 30 year Congressman that hasn’t authored a passed bill. The guy that wants Iran to posses nukes to wipe out Israel. The candidate that wants to legalize dangerous drugs and put everyone’s life in danger on the nations highways.

      Report Post » Blackhawk1  
    • YepImaConservative
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 5:14pm

      >CAUN. Although libertarians/ Ron Paul supporters are far from being modern liberals/Obama supporters in some respects (economy/commerce/trade)… both libertarians/Ron Paul supporters and modern liberals/Obama supporters are oblivious to social reality, both demand radical personal autonomy in expression. That is one reason libertarians/Ron Paul supporters are not to be confused, as they often are, with well rounded conservatives. They are quasi- or semiconservatives, or even better yet… “thrifty liberals” (my personal favorate). Nor are they to be confused with classical liberals, who considered restraints on individual autonomy to be essential.

      Jus‘ thought you’d like to know… lol.

      Report Post » YepImaConservative  
    • Vechorik
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 6:45pm

      Blackhawk1,– I won’t even begin to correct your mis-statements. You use lies to damage Dr. Paul and you should be ashamed.

      Report Post »  
    • West Coast Patriot
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 7:04pm

      Blackhawk and Noimnotaconservative, Did you two even listen to Bill and Glenn? I know you are not the media, but you also LIE. Stop lying. I gather that you get all your info from the MSM and that is why you are lying, because you just do not know better, but remember, ignorance is not a virtue. I see more and more patriots waking up everyday. I listen to them thank me for opening their eyes, everyday. We will not waiver in our effort to save the Republic that is almost gone. We will not vote for anymore Progressives, like Romney, Perry, Cain and anyone else that have their Croni-Capitilistic views. We will write Paul in if he does not get the nomination. I know many, and I mean many Paul supporters that will do the same thing. So when it comes down to it, we will see if the country has more Progressives or more Patriots of the Constitution.

      Report Post » West Coast Patriot  
    • buzdburd
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 7:46pm

      BlackHawk-
      You & I are singing from the same songbook!!

      Report Post » buzdburd  
    • YepImaConservative
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 8:09pm

      Libertarian/Libertine principles for the most part appeal to people who are just venturing into politics. They may be unsuspecting, uninformed, naive or just plain ignorant of reality. Libertarian/Libertine dogma, on the surface, is extremely appealing. Many of you abuse the English language in putting an idealistic face on the notion of “freedom”. After all, who is against freedom right? Even the arguments about drugs, and other Libertarian/Libertine ideas sound nice on the surface to many. It is only when one begins to actually think, and critically analyze the Libertarian Ron Paul platform that it begins to fall apart. There can be no doubt that the vast majority of people who find the Libertarian/Libertine position appealing are young people, college students, and other idealists without a sense of how the real world actually functions.The libertarian movement, (The Ron Paul revolution) and some of its more destructive ideas are alive and well and making headway among young, ignorant political newbies. Libertarianism is also appealing because it provides a short cut to thinking. The Ron Paul supporters continue to chant the same mantras, over and over and over. I mean, seriously ask yourself… when was the last time you saw something original come from a Libertarian/Ron Paul supporter? Almost Never! They just regurgitate Libertarian propaganda like a bodily function, then end it with RON PAUL 2012!

      Report Post » YepImaConservative  
    • A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 8:10pm

      @Blackhawk1,

      “Ah yes Ron Paul….The King of earmarks.”

      You don’t understand what earmarks are. Earmarks are what Congressmen are SUPPOSED to have done to appropriated funds. Otherwise, the Executive Branch will spend what has not been earmarked.

      This is why Ron Paul will earmark as much of the requested funds as possible, but will end up voting against most of the appropriations bills.

      See here.

      Earmarks Don’t Add Up
      http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul513.html

      “If funds are not designated, they revert to non-designated spending controlled by bureaucrats in the executive branch. In other words, when a designation request makes it into the budget, it subtracts funds out of what is available to the executive branch and bureaucrats in various departments, and targets it for projects that the people and their representatives request in their districts. If a congressman does not submit funding requests for his district the money is simply spent elsewhere. To eliminate all earmarks would be to further consolidate power in the already dominant executive branch and not save a penny.”

      Report Post »  
    • A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 8:26pm

      @YepImaConservative,

      “Even the arguments about drugs, and other Libertarian/Libertine ideas sound nice on the surface to many. It is only when one begins to actually think, and critically analyze the Libertarian Ron Paul platform that it begins to fall apart.”

      So let’s think and critically analyze the Libertarian Ron Paul platform.

      The Libertarian position on drugs is based on self-ownership. If you grant the premise that someone can tell you what you can put into your own body, then you shouldn’t be surprised when they try to regulate how much salt you eat because your health affects the cost of the increasingly government-controlled health industry.

      Our Founders had this view as well.

      See here.

      “There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

      “There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

      (Continued on next post)

      Report Post »  
    • A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 8:35pm

      (Continued from prior post)

      “It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

      “The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed.

      …

      “The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.”

      This is from the Federalist Papers.

      See here.

      Federalist Papers #10
      http://constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

      Report Post »  
    • Viet Vet
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 9:06pm

      @GARYM

      Very True.

      Report Post »  
    • ashestoashes
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 9:19pm

      Bladk Hawk..2nd try. We have built up other nations militarys. When Russia failed because of Communism.
      They said feed us..so we did while they buillt underground nuclear power. Look at China.they keep to themselves and have built themselves up to the greatest nation in the world. We have bought into the war machine lie which serves only to line politician’s pockets. We have funded muslim countries more that any other. There have been over 100,000 suicides of Veterans..countless war injuries physical and mental
      THe war on drugs has served us well hasn’t it..when the highest echelons of our government are doing business with the Hezbolah Drug Cartel in Mexico. WHen you take the incentive for the drugs out.. the murder and mayhem go down..that’s the goal..as long as they are illegal..everyone who is willing to make a dishonest dollar gets involved.. Money beyond belief..I The war on drugs has failed..also look at Obama and friends suing every state trying to keep illegals out..We need a serious change..

      Report Post »  
    • YepImaConservative
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 9:52pm

      >LABOR. I’ll give you my real quick analyse regarding the legalization of drugs. Ron Paul says that the government is unconstitutionally sticking its nose in peoples business by not allowing it. I say once it becomes legal, who is going to cover the costs of the people that get addicted to it to go to rehab or treatment centers? And please don’t say the addict. Probably the government will have to. Great, now here comes a great big expansion of government to fight the new drug war that was ”caused by the Libertarian Ron Paul”. Which by the way, I as a taxpayer will have to cover including continued police and court costs etc, etc. If I’m going to put my money towards something, I would rather pay for the continued prohibition of drugs. The truth is, prohibition works well on a lot of things. Bad things should be banned, pure and simple (even the prohibition of alcohol had a definate upside). There is absolutely no upside when it comes drugs for the sole purpose of intoxication (medicinal marijuana maybe… maybe… strictly prescribed and strictly controlled). Get tough policies are costly yes, but do work to a great degree and legalization or weak enforcement policies will result in more useless chaos to our society. The “freedom” to put whatever you want in your body and it‘s nobody else’s business has, and will always have… larger implications… and not just for the addict, but for society at large.

      Report Post » YepImaConservative  
    • A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 10:56pm

      @YepImaConservative,

      “I’ll give you my real quick analyse regarding the legalization of drugs. Ron Paul says that the government is unconstitutionally sticking its nose in peoples business by not allowing it. I say once it becomes legal, who is going to cover the costs of the people that get addicted to it to go to rehab or treatment centers?”

      There were no federal drug laws when our country was founded, for one thing.

      For another, it’s government that makes rehab more expensive; This is because government is not a market player – it is literally impossible for government to make economic decisions. This is why they screw up the economy all the time.

      All of the ills you mention as associated with freely available drugs are actually caused by government, as well: expansion of government and higher taxes to “regulate” (we have reinterpreted this word to mean something the Constitution never intended, by the way), police and court costs, the chaos of the drug cartels, and the wrecked lives of those who choose gangs or prostitution.

      These are all caused by the war on drugs.

      See here.

      Defending the Undefendable (Chapter 4: The Drug Pusher) by Walter Block
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vT1WgD1Ujh8

      Report Post »  
    • YepImaConservative
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 11:32pm

      >LABOR. Barney Frank and millions of other Liberals agree with Ron Paul. I‘m not sure if I’d like to be in the same camp as Barney Frank and millions of Liberals… on anything quite “frankly”.. Your post doesn’t address the chaos I speak of regarding drugs and the legalization of it. Most in favor will just gloss over that part. Both introduced a bill ending the war on drugs. He77 even Jimmy “the lusting peanut fahmah” Cahtah (a Liberal to the 10th degree) said drugs destroy million of young lives including their families or something to that effect. For leftists, drug use is a personal lifestyle choice, the condemnation of which would be the unpardonable sin of judgmentalism, while legalizers on the “fringe right” frame the issue around personal responsibility, suggesting it’s paternalistic for government to keep people from putting harmful things in their systems.

      Well, yes, that would be paternalistic… if that were society’s only beef with narcotics. But drugs aren’t like Big Macs or cigarettes. It’s one thing to clog your arteries or ravage your lungs… it’s quite another to consume substances that warp your mind or dull your senses to the point where you become a threat to the rights of others. And despite what the legalizers say, drugs use certainly isn’t victimless… not even when it comes to marijuana, allegedly the safest of the bunch. The we have the real chaotic intoxicants to deal with like meth, crack, heroin etc.

      Report Post » YepImaConservative  
    • YepImaConservative
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 11:35pm

      […] a man, not having the power of his own life, cannot, by compact, or his own consent, enslave himself to any one, nor put himself under the absolute, arbitrary power of another, to take away his life, when he pleases. No body can give more power than he has himself; and he that cannot take away his own life, cannot give another power over it […] But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself […]

      Report Post » YepImaConservative  
    • A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 11:53pm

      @YepImaConservative,

      “Barney Frank and millions of other Liberals agree with Ron Paul. I‘m not sure if I’d like to be in the same camp as Barney Frank and millions of Liberals… on anything quite “frankly””

      Genetic fallacy. Our Founders believed the same thing about freedom that Barney Frank, millions of other Commie useful idiots, and Ron Paul. So they’re all in the same camp as our Founders on this issue, and I like being in the same camp as America’s Founders.

      “Your post doesn’t address the chaos I speak of regarding drugs and the legalization of it.”

      Yes, I did address the chaos of which you spoke. I said that it was caused by the war on drugs, and then provided a link to some evidence.

      The war on drugs drives their costs higher, which is why those who are addicted to them spend so much of their time and effort trying to acquire them rather than making an honest living.

      “But drugs aren’t like Big Macs or cigarettes. It’s one thing to clog your arteries or ravage your lungs… it’s quite another to consume substances that warp your mind or dull your senses to the point where you become a threat to the rights of others.”

      A “threat to”, or an actual offender? You don’t get to just presume that someone will violate the rights of others.

      (Continued on next post)

      Report Post »  
    • A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 11:54pm

      (Continued from prior post)

      “And despite what the legalizers say, drugs use certainly isn’t victimless… not even when it comes to marijuana, allegedly the safest of the bunch. The we have the real chaotic intoxicants to deal with like meth, crack, heroin etc.”

      Again, the chaos is caused by the war on drugs. Listen to the link I provided. It‘s the higher costs in the context of the war on drugs that consumes the users’ time, and that enriches the drug cartels.

      The Constitution limits government to a small number of duties, and matters pertaining to drug use is not one of them. Your view on drugs is unconstitutional.

      Report Post »  
    • Max jones
      Posted on November 19, 2011 at 12:07am

      CANNOTCAREIUS…..I really have not read a better description of ‘libertarian’. thanx for that. But, I see a big problem, the same problem this system has…..human nature. Despots, major and minor, would, as they always have, find ways to practice and thrive. I just feel that the weaker individuals among us would be much more vulnerable. The “old west” of the times of the territories showed us some of the kinds of trouble license without limit can manifest. I live in southern Oklahoma, and I know a little about the excesses of the Indian wars in the late 19th century. I try not to be radical in thought. Libertarianism, seems like it could be harder to steer.

      Report Post » Max jones  
    • A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
      Posted on November 19, 2011 at 12:15am

      @Max jones,

      “The “old west” of the times of the territories showed us some of the kinds of trouble license without limit can manifest.”

      No, it didn’t. The statists have really had their way with this country, sad to say.

      See here.

      Applying Economics to American History | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
      http ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-LJ3wZjD4I

      And here.

      An American Experiment in Anarcho- Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West
      http ://www.lewrockwell.com/rep/not-so-wild-west.html

      Report Post »  
    • West Coast Patriot
      Posted on November 19, 2011 at 3:04am

      Yesimaconservative, should be noimnotaconservative, You need to wise up and understand the Constitution. Have you not read it yet? Also the Federalist Papers. Quit being so lazy and read them. Or maybe you just cannot understand them. Paul’s position is on the Federal level, if you can think on that level. Constitutionally, it is not up to the Federal Government to dictate to the individual what they can or cannot do. It is up to each individual state to determine, by the will of the people of the state, on what the laws are for that state. By having a government in this way, people can vote with their feet and live in a state where the laws meet their personal beliefs or vote out the state legislators if the majority does not like what they have done. It is easier to change the laws at the state level than the Federal level. In a Socialistic/Fascist type Federal Government, which we are at right now, the states become the same and it does not matter where you live, the laws are all the same. Wise up before it is too late and your children and grandchildren will have no individual liberty in their grasp.

      Report Post » West Coast Patriot  
    • YepImaConservative
      Posted on November 19, 2011 at 9:17am

      >LABOR. If government is essentially the collective exercise of the individual right to self-defense, then of course people are within their rights to protect themselves from drug related crimes and accidents by prohibiting the source. Conservatives in particular should know better than to fall for libertarians’ superficially appealing arguments about the “right” to do drugs. As I posted in the partial quote above… John Locke himself argued that man’s power over his own body was not absolute, that liberty didn’t cover the right to enslave or destroy one’s self. Liberty requires that we to put up with a lot from our neighbors, but indulging the chaos that mind-altering substances inflict upon society is a Liberal/Libertarian/Libertine/Ron Paul strategy (all one in the same) I’m not willing to accept… it’s a bridge too far.

      Report Post » YepImaConservative  
    • A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
      Posted on November 19, 2011 at 2:00pm

      @YepImaConservative,

      “If government is essentially the collective exercise of the individual right to self-defense, then of course people are within their rights to protect themselves from drug related crimes and accidents by prohibiting the source.”

      People are within their rights to protect themselves from all crimes, but drug use is not a crime, nor are the crimes “related” to drugs of any different kind than crimes “related” to any other kind of desire. To single out drug use is arbitrary.

      “Conservatives in particular should know better than to fall for libertarians’ superficially appealing arguments about the “right” to do drugs. As I posted in the partial quote above… John Locke himself argued that man’s power over his own body was not absolute, that liberty didn’t cover the right to enslave or destroy one’s self.”

      You misunderstand Locke. He made the point to which you refer by appealing to the very right to destroy one‘s self that you say doesn’t exist.

      What he was saying was that since you always retain power over your own life, it’s not something that you can give up for another to control or dispose of as they see fit; And therefore no government can rightfully lay claim to what you do with, or to, your own body, so long as you don’t intend to violate the rights of others.

      (Continued on next post)

      Report Post »  
    • A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
      Posted on November 19, 2011 at 2:10pm

      (Continued from prior post)

      See here.

      The Second Treatise of Civil Government
      CHAP. IV.
      Of Slavery.
      http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr04.htm

      “Sec. 23. This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power, is so necessary to, and closely joined with a man’s preservation, that he cannot part with it, but by what forfeits his preservation and life together: for a man, not having the power of his own life, cannot, by compact, or his own consent, enslave himself to any one, nor put himself under the absolute, arbitrary power of another, to take away his life, when he pleases. No body can give more power than he has himself; and he that cannot take away his own life, cannot give another power over it. Indeed, having by his fault forfeited his own life, by some act that deserves death; he, to whom he has forfeited it, may (when he has him in his power) delay to take it, and make use of him to his own service, and he does him no injury by it: for, whenever he finds the hardship of his slavery outweigh the value of his life, it is in his power, by resisting the will of his master, to draw on himself the death he desires.”

      (Continued on next post)

      Report Post »  
    • A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
      Posted on November 19, 2011 at 2:19pm

      (Continued from prior post)

      “Liberty requires that we to put up with a lot from our neighbors, but indulging the chaos that mind-altering substances inflict upon society is a Liberal/Libertarian/Libertine/Ron Paul strategy (all one in the same) I’m not willing to accept… it’s a bridge too far.”

      Again, the chaos comes not from drug use, but from the high cost of drug use that comes from its attempted prohibition, as noted above.

      The Liberal/Libertarian/Libertine/Ron Paul strategy is the Constitutional strategy; “Conservative” does not necessarily mean “Constitutional”.

      Report Post »  
    • colt1860
      Posted on November 19, 2011 at 4:55pm

      One other thing to consider. Our founding fathers intended for us to have too much liberty, rather than too little. This is why John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”. If your worry and concern is the ill effects our freedoms may bestow upon our society, I highly suggest you pick up a Bible and go to your Church or local community gathering place and preach the truth of God without reservation and fervently preach righteousness and responsibility unto our youth. The ills in our Society has been the fault of Progressives in Government and the abandonment of the Christian Church to preach holiness, charity and the two great Commandments, especially to love your neighbor as yourselves, wherein equal rights are found. Our solution is not more Government, our solution is a Revival, an awakening of the Spirit of Liberty and the receiving of true knowledge, which is the fear of God.

      For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding. He layeth up sound wisdom for the righteous: he is a buckler to them that walk uprightly. He keepeth the paths of judgment, and preserveth the way of his saints. Then shalt thou understand righteousness, and judgment, and equity; yea, every good path. Proverbs 6-9

      Report Post »  
    • colt1860
      Posted on November 19, 2011 at 4:59pm

      Washington’s 1796 Farewell Address, written by Alexander Hamilton and revised by himself.

      “Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?”

      Report Post »  
    • colt1860
      Posted on November 19, 2011 at 5:09pm

      Our free Government was one entrusted into the hands of a Christian people. The need to unconstitutionally expand the Powers of the federal Government to rectify the actions of irreligious and immoral people are not to be tolerated. The current ignorance and indecency of our youth can not be fixed by Governmental force or intrusion. How has that been working for us today? It has not accomplished anything.

      We have staked the whole future of American civilization, NOT UPON THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God. – Madison

      In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed…No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people. – Noah Webster

      In the state of nature, every man has a right to think and act according to the dictates of his own mind, which in that state, are subject to no other control and can be commanded by no other power than the laws and ordinances of the great Creator of all things… He therefore is the truest friend to the Liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue… The sum of all is, if we would most truly enjoy this gift of Heaven, let us become a virtuous people. – Sam Adams

      Report Post »  
    • colt1860
      Posted on November 19, 2011 at 6:52pm

      Something else worthy of review. Only Congress can make Laws for our Nation, and Powers not conferred to the federal Government by the US Constitution remain with the States, or the People. Unless our President becomes a dictator and makes laws himself, these are moot arguments and irrelevant. Even California was unable to legalize marijuana by a popular vote.

      Then, there’s this other fact to consider, that there exists two classifications of the same plant; industrial hemp and “marijuana”. The two are used for different purposes (industrial hemp is not the hippie nonsense most folks have been brainwashed to believe, their purposes are completely different).

      Heck, even our own Government advocated the use of industrial hemp:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne9UF-pFhJY

      Report Post »  
    • A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
      Posted on November 19, 2011 at 7:00pm

      @YepImaConservative,

      I should qualify something:

      I mean that the “Liberal/Libertarian/Libertine/Ron Paul strategy ON THE DRUG ISSUE is the Constitutional strategy”.

      The Left are not being collectivists when they simply favor the decriminalizing of drugs; However, they are being collectivists when they say they wish to regulate the sale of drugs.

      Report Post »  
    • A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
      Posted on November 20, 2011 at 12:39am

      @colt1860,

      It’s important to note that the United States was not set up as a theocracy, or to advance Christianity, but to secure the rights of its citizens – those of other religions and Atheists, included.

      See here.

      Federalist Papers #10
      http://constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

      “The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.”

      While our Founders were sensible enough to believe in a god, not all of them were Christians.

      For example, Thomas Jefferson liked Jesus’ teachings, but he was a deist.

      This resource may come in handy.

      See here.

      Unconfirmed Quotations
      http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=126

      Report Post »  
    • colt1860
      Posted on November 20, 2011 at 8:19pm

      @A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right When this Nation was founded 98% were Protestant Christian, 1% were Roman Catholic, and less than 1% were Jews, Atheists and Deists.

      John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court and one of the three men most responsible for the writing of the Constitution declared, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is their duty-as well as privilege and interest- of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

      In 1854 the House Judiciary Committee said, “in this age, there is no substitute for Christianity…That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.”

      In 1892 the S. Court stated, “No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, State or national, because this is a religious people … This is a Christian nation. There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning; they affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons: they are organic [legal, governmental] utterances; they speak the voice of the entire people. … These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.”

      Report Post »  
  • bassist237
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:11pm

    Did you all see the video of when he was “rick rolled”? You should check it out on youtube… it will give you a good chuckle :)

    Report Post » bassist237  
  • jmiller_42
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:11pm

    If O’Rielly would hold to the same standard for himself as he does for the libs, I would like him. His unfair treatment of Ron Paul shows him for the hypocrite that he is. Ron Paul wins his own poll and he disqualifies him for it. He has no credibility, although I like his occasional liberal take down ( a lot of the time he is just mean and doesn’t actually win the argument) . He would do far better if he would let people finish their arguments instead of shouting over them.

    Report Post » jmiller_42  
    • ldwaddell
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:18pm

      Damn him for not being a Ron Paul supporter. He is probably a member of the illuminaughty or the build-a-burgers. If he only knew the truth about 9/11 he would support Ron Paul1

      Report Post » ldwaddell  
    • jmiller_42
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:49pm

      No, it‘s fine if he doesn’t like Ron Paul. But calling him a nuts and then asking him about his foreign policy and not giving him any time to explain, being rude to him in his presidential forum, and then excluding him from the poll after he won is why it irks me. Just be fair is all I’m asking.

      Report Post » jmiller_42  
    • Jimbo49
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 6:49pm

      For most liberals to make their point, they first have to start with a series of statements, (givens). Then, because of the three or four givens, their point is the only conclusion. However, more often than not, the givens are falacious, so the point is also wrong. O‘Reilly doesn’t let a person make a series of statement, that lead only to their point, without challenge. That is the idea behind his “no spin zone”. If A, B, C, and D are all true, then only E can follow. Liberal spinners do not like to be challenged on the “if ” part of their set up, to prove their point. They cry about not being able to finish, when they’ve started out by making four “unchallengable true statements,” any one of which should have to be first debated, and agreed to, before the discussion can move foreward.

      Report Post »  
    • TulsaYeeHaw
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 7:26pm

      DON’T BE DISSING MY BURGER BUILDERS!!!
      I’ll get upset with you.

      Report Post »  
  • progressiveslayer
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:09pm

    I’m not a fan of silly Billy.too middle of the road for me.

    Report Post » progressiveslayer  
    • Zorro6821
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:43pm

      What I find most disturbing about Beck and Mr O is that they seem to churn out books like cornflakes. Every-time they seem to be short on cash they whip out a book and their Zombie followers buy them. The books are pure vanilla with no toppings. Writing a book about Lincoln is about as hard as writing a book about the dictionary. Lincoln is perhaps the most written about and researched man in American History. The only difference in Mr. O’s book is some fiction sprinkled in to make it seem original and the Mr. O as the author. The advantage Mr O has is that he can flog his book along with his pens, mugs and T-shirts on his show for the next ten years. I see his stuff at yard sales every weekend for a quarter.

      Report Post »  
    • COFemale
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 4:26pm

      Yeah Zorro you know this because you yourself have written books on Lincoln or other people? No, you haven’t written any books; so, therefore you are ignorant of the subject of which you speak. Who would of thunk it?

      Maybe if you’d take that stick out of your ___________ and read Killing Lincoln, you might actually learn something. See arrogance is thinking that you know everything about everything and you possibly could not learn anything new from a subject in which you know everything. I think that sums you quite nicely Zerro – oops my bad Zorro.

      Report Post » COFemale  
    • JustPeachy
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 4:55pm

      @Zorro – so don’t buy the books. Simple as that. Write your own and sell them (if you can). Simple as that.

      Have you ever written a book, edited it, had it edited? Do you know the time involved to do so?

      If so, then you must realize it IS work (even children’s books) and for work, people are just fine getting paid if they can sell their products.

      If not, then you don‘t know what you’re talking about.

      Either way, you sound JEALOUS.

      Report Post » JustPeachy  
  • Spqr1
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:09pm

    You mean getting something like the existence of the Oval Office wrong? Anyone with a tiny bit of research experience wouldn’t have missed that one. This cuts into what‘s left of Bill’s credibility. But then again, this shouldn’t have surprised anyone. Bill makes stuff up all the time, you can read all about it in the Paris Business Review….

    Report Post »  
    • Zorro6821
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 4:27pm

      SPQR…that is correct….The Oval Office was pure fiction and Mr O, still does not call that dopey. Mow Mr O could have missed that is beyond me.

      Report Post »  
    • Eblaze44
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 10:55pm

      I suppose it was the “square office”. I haven‘t read the book and probably won’t. but – I can see someone using the “oval office” as the Presidents ‘official’ office – even if it was octangular. (ok, so I made that word up.) just how oval is that office anyway? I presume the room is sort of roundish?

      Report Post » Eblaze44  
  • garyM
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:09pm

    OReilly clearly doesn’t post any emails that will expose him for what he is when he says “send your comments to OReilly@foxnews.com“ name and town if you wish to opine”, I know first hand!

    Report Post »  
  • garyM
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:05pm

    OReilly threw softballs to Obama in his interview, didn‘t do his fact check before the interview or didn’t expose what he found one of the two. He is clearly a grandstander trying to please enough people to keep his ratings up, not choosing to be a source of truth only!

    Report Post »  
  • encinom
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:00pm

    O‘Reilly’s book is a great work of fiction.

    Report Post »  
    • garyM
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:19pm

      I haven”t read the book but now I would put money it is factual since you made your post judging by what you always post, you dufus!

      Report Post »  
    • Faith1029
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:36pm

      ENCINOM: “O‘Reilly’s book is a great work of fiction.”

      I am curious to know what chapter of the book do you consider fiction? Please explain.

      Report Post »  
  • RichNGadsden
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:00pm

    This woman was ugly back in the ‘80’s move Sea Of Love, what can we expect from her today on the now defunct Behar show?

    Report Post » RichNGadsden  
  • garyM
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 2:56pm

    If you could purchase OReilly for what he was actually worth as a news personality and sell him for what he thinks he is worth, you could make a hellava profit!

    Report Post »  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:04pm

      I downloaded the Licoln book last week, first O’Reilly book I have read. I have read other books about the assassination, it interests me. It is a good book.

      Report Post » Gonzo  
    • Faith1029
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:13pm

      While Fox News does seem to be going a bit left, I am not willing to throw Bill O’Reilly under the bus. He does report the facts, and he is willing to air news that other news media will not. I have noticed a number of times he has stopped someone in their tracks when they don’t have the facts to back it up. In that regard, I admire him for that. He and Hannity are all we have left so I am not going to sell him short. If we lose them, I may as well cancel cable.

      Report Post »  
  • TruthSeekingTexan
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 2:50pm

    I think it‘s telling when O’Reilly starts saying the same things as GB… If Mr. “Fair and Balanced” is starting to admit to all the craziness in academia and the media…you know things must be getting pretty bad.

    Report Post » TruthSeekingTexan  
    • CatB
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 2:54pm

      Hope he is waking up to the FACTS.

      TEA!

      Report Post »  
    • old white guy
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 2:56pm

      what is not right is the commie takeover of the u.s.

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:10pm

      @TRUTHSEEKINGTEXAN

      Rather that using the term “Academia”,

      I like to use the term “Quackademia”

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • TSUNAMI-22
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:13pm

      O’ Reilly is old-school and still thinks that integrity plays its part in journalism. That has been his mistake for a few years now. O’ Reilly is slowly beginning to wake up to the truth………“fair” is a word created so that liberals and progressives can play with the big boys.

      O‘ Reilly has realized that lefty loons don’t like competition in any way, shape, or form.

      Life ISN”T FAIR. They don’t teach that in school anymore. This fact, in my opinion, is the true “golden rule”.

      Report Post »  
  • SEPARATENOW
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 2:50pm

    In fairness, over the years I’ve watched his program he has decried the corrupt liberal media. The only reason I can’t watch is that his ego seems to trump all, including his rationality.

    As I’ve written here and other places dozens of times, we live in two separate countries with intermingled populations. Everything we say is a lie to them. Likewise, their statements to us. We have nothing in common with them. Nothing. It is over.

    Will we devolve into civil war or separate now as peacefully as possible?

    Report Post » SEPARATENOW  
    • cemerius
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:07pm

      Unfortunately I feel we are tipping toward a political change I DO NOT agree with! With that said I feel we are close to a War! Nothing about war is civil and I would rather avoid it at all counts!! Base on my experience in many armed conflicts with hands politically tied this one will be bloodier than any conflict we have ever had or truly prepared for…….

      Report Post » cemerius  
    • Baikonur
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:10pm

      @SEPARATENOW
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 2:50pm
      ‘Will we devolve into civil war or separate now as peacefully as possible?’
      *************
      How do you propose such a separation occur?

      Report Post » Baikonur  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:15pm

      @BAIKONUR

      Well, for starters, you get Pelosi

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
  • B-Neil
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 2:49pm

    I’d really like to hear real informative discussions. This wash woman banter is lame as hell. Come on Mr. Beck and Mr. O’Reilly. Don’t fall into the pit of Worthlessness. ( PLEASE) CARRY ON McDUFF

    Report Post »  
  • garyM
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 2:48pm

    Bill all you done when you hired Juan Williams is brought that crap that NPR was spreading to FOX so we gotten listen to it! I don’t tune to Fox much anymore!

    Report Post »  
  • duckwalker
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 2:48pm

    Poor Billy Boy has been dismissing Glenn’s views for years. Now when it impacts him, he’s all up in the air.

    Report Post »  
    • pamela kay
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:10pm

      Say what you will about O’Reiley but the man has a purpose. He understands that in order to draw viewers he has to appear to be fair and balanced otherwise FOX will no longer be on the air. He has drawn a broad audience to FOX that would never have turned to FOX otherwise. He kinows the importance of reaching more than just conservatives. I know serveral people that started out watching just O’Reilley and now watch only FOX. Glenn knows this as well. He and O’Reilley are friends. Inspite of the nit picking O’Reiley throws at Glenn they remain friends and I think both know the importance of FOX. Glenn did not want to be held back by anyone and decided to leave but don‘t think that he and O’Reiley aren’t on the same page . Shutting down FOX would give us a very narrow outlet. It would end any possibilty of gaining new viewers that are sitting on the fence politically. O’Reiley opens the door. He can be arrogant and often irritates me with his “fair and Balanced” perspective but it is necessary to keep FOX available to the conservative audience.

      Report Post » pamela kay  
    • sissykatz
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 9:02pm

      PamalaK

      It is so nice too hear someone that understands Logic and Business. I
      too understand exactly what he is doing and I admire him greatly. I do
      believe he is a man of honor and a brilliant man. I don’t always agree with
      him but I also disagree with Beck on some things. He and Beck are good
      friends. Beck decided to go a different route and I am glad for that because
      I have learned so much from him. Their is a place for O’reilly and Beck in this
      world and I am glad we have both of them.

      I also think it is “SAD” that the Paurl supporters have decided to try and destroy
      his book sales. I don’t have a problem with anyone that supports Ron Paul, that
      is their right. I don‘t support him and there are a lot that don’t. But to try and destroy
      the man’s book sales with Amazon is wrong and cowardly.

      Report Post »  
  • garyM
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 2:46pm

    O‘Reilly’s fair and balanced approach force him to toot the horns of those who are taking down the country, tell me that’s fair and balanced!

    Report Post »  
  • ares338
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 2:45pm

    He got some of his own attack tactics back at him. I am not a fan of his.

    Report Post » ares338  
    • CatB
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 2:50pm

      I hope it wakes him up … see how he likes it.

      TEA!

      Report Post »  
    • Rightallalong
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:09pm

      BillO is a social pregressive through and through. He has often dismissed the Constitution and has called the Oath Keepers whose missionis to support those that take an Oath to the Constitution a bunch of kooks. He also supported the illegal confiscation of weapons being used to defend life and property after Katrina. There is no excuse for that sort of record except to admit that you are a progressive and admit to urinating on the constitution.

      Watch it yourself and taste the bile – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isd0FlGb_LY Listen to his backwards logic … makes me sick

      Report Post » Rightallalong  
  • garyM
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 2:45pm

    By the way, the books are to fill O‘Reilly’s pockets first and foremost!

    Report Post »  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 2:57pm

      What other reason should he write them for? The greater good? Don’t make me defend big mouth Bill, it pains me.

      Report Post » Gonzo  
    • Sy Kosys
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:06pm

      Plus an A$$-ton donated to Wounded Warrior Project

      Plus copies themselves sent to troops overseas

      what in hell have YOU done for society, artard?

      Report Post » Sy Kosys  
    • Zorro6821
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 4:23pm

      When you watch these clowns, it always boils down to what they can sell you. Take GB..he now has a clothing line, Books, videos, internet blog and pay for the super deluxe package, GB TV, Radio show and always the extra dollar charge for the “Deluxe” Versions. After a while it gets to be too much, kinda like watching an infomercial. GB and MR O are money magnets sucking out the coins from the Zombies who need false prophets to fill their inner void. I say god bless them for being true capitalist and entrepreneurs. It is the suckers that feed into it I feel pity for.

      Report Post »  
    • sissykatz
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 8:43pm

      GaryM

      I am sure he makes money on his books, I would expect to if I wrote
      a book and you would too. But…….. he donates hundreds of thousands
      of dolllars off the sale of his books and merchandise to “Wounded Warriors”
      “Fisher House” and many more. I admire what he does greatly. Who else
      do you know that donates that much of their profit for as many good things???
      I am glad he makes money. I don’t begrudge him one dime. But I admire his
      Philanthrophy also.

      Report Post »  
    • Zorro6821
      Posted on November 19, 2011 at 5:38am

      GaryM…Absolutely….the books that these guys pump out at an alarming rate, makes you wonder?

      Report Post »  
  • garyM
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 2:43pm

    In my opinion O’Reilly has befriended Beck but in the background of their conversation in interviews he has done the same thing to Beck as Geraldo! He has accused Beck of blowing OWS out of proportion and then turned around on the Factor and reported, the killings, rapes and everything and said, “as I have been reporting all along, the situation is getting out of hand”. I have seen through OReilly’s phony attitude a long time but it has never shined through like it has now. If he had told the truth and said I dissed Beck and Beck was right all along I could go with that!

    Report Post »  
  • MikeyMoose
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 2:43pm

    For some time now our family has joked about “hoping that Obama never drops his britches and moons us…because O‘Reilly’s lip prints would be there for all to see”. His pandering to the left is his way of claiming to be “fair and balanced” in his commentary, but now it’s becoming more personal for him, and he’s changing his tune. Too bad he wasn’t out on the forefront of pointing out the bias in the media and the lies and total hypocrisy of the left and the “main stream media” (which they own outright) like Glenn Beck has been doing for years now. Welcome to the party Bill…better late than never!

    Report Post » MikeyMoose  
  • lodgerat
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 2:39pm

    I’m glad Bill is finally catching up. Heck, most posters on this blog and people that have been Beck fans have known this for years.

    Report Post » lodgerat  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:00pm

      Catching up? He declared the whole OWS movement “dead” on Wenesday night. He really thinks it‘s nothing more than a bunch of loser kids and doesn’t acknowledge that there is world wide organization behind it.

      Report Post » Gonzo  
  • NickDeringer
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 2:35pm

    Welcome to reality, Bill. Where have you been?

    Report Post » NickDeringer  
    • lukerw
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 2:42pm

      There is No Middle between… the Radical Left… and the Constitutional Conservative. You must choose to be a supporter… of Socialism… or of Capitalism!

      Report Post » lukerw  
    • Lotus503
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 2:43pm

      I think he just realized that “Fair and balanced” doesn‘t work when you’re fighting socialists. Get off the fence, Bill…

      Report Post »  
  • CulpepperJosh1638
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 2:33pm

    O’Reilly called me a Ron Paul Nut today in this interview; while not direct! Sir, you have no idea what you are talking about and throwing me in with occupiers is greatly offensive. Don’t expect me to defend you anymore man!

    Report Post » CulpepperJosh1638  
    • garyM
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 4:34pm

      Ron Paul is a nut, that’s not hard to see!

      Report Post »  
    • West Coast Patriot
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 7:44pm

      Garym, Ron Paul is only nuts to people who get their info from the MSM. If you think Paul is nuts, it means you really do not believe in the Constitution, which has been raped by Progressives for decades, or they are just ignorant to the facts, and in my eyes, that makes you a Progressive or just plain ignorant. I hope you are the latter as true Conservatives do not give Progressives the time of day.

      Report Post » West Coast Patriot  
    • YepImaConservative
      Posted on November 19, 2011 at 9:21am

      Ron Paul supporting Code Pink type pacifists ARE hanging with the OWS crowd. The squirrels are hanging out with the nuts so to speak…

      Report Post » YepImaConservative  
  • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
    Posted on November 18, 2011 at 2:32pm

    Mr O’Reilly I will be simple; “Welcome to the jungle old chap…welcome to the jungle…”

    Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • RichNGadsden
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 2:57pm

      Snow, hear, hear!

      Report Post » RichNGadsden  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 2:59pm

      Bill O’Reilly is too stupid to understand his own fallacies. Even this article suports the deception that O’Reilly is a Conservative. He’s never been a Conservative. What he is is a useful idiot who claims to ride the middle of the fence as an Independent, and even that is false. He falls left of center, and is one of the main cogs in Murdochs efforts to create a paradigm shift in the American consciousness towards acceptance of socialism.

      With the current left showing themselves to be exactly what they have always been, cold Marxists. Anything right of that in the lefts use of media force appears softer in tone and appears right wing. The fact is, center moderate Conservatives and Independents are the exact same philosophically as the 1970′s liberal democrats. It’s simply that the right left dividing line is almost entirely at mid point of the left ideologically.

      The exposing of the hard left (obamafascists/marxists), and the lifting of their masks creates what Bernays would call a shift in the social conscience, or, a paradigm shift. Even if the hard left loses all 3 levels of governance, nothing but a radical shift right can undo the damage done to the Republican form of governance. Why? Because the liberals are already Marxist. The center line politicians are soft socialists. The only remaining vestiges of right wing politics are Constitutional Moderates/Libertarians.

      O‘Reilly is today’s Bernays, and he is deceitful with his lies.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • Rightallalong
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:20pm

      Spot on 10th, Spot on!!

      Report Post » Rightallalong  
    • carolinaconservative
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:33pm

      Right on the money 10th. Stopped watching O’Reilly 2 years ago. Don’t miss it at all!

      Report Post » carolinaconservative  
    • carolinaconservative
      Posted on November 18, 2011 at 3:36pm

      Right on the money 10th. Stopped watching O‘Reilly 2 years ago and don’t miss that mess at all!

      Report Post » carolinaconservative  
1 2 3 4

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love