I was beginning to think no one would call me on this. Here’s 15.
1) Mr. O’Reilly claimed the SCOTUS ruled that a baker could not be compelled to specifically design a cake for a gay wedding if it violated his religious beliefs. So far OK. But then he said that a baker can't refuse a gay person from buying a cake on display and that, if he did, "he'd go to jail." That's NOT a criminal violation.
2) He said that a neurologist specializing in Parkinson's Disease visited the WH 8 times in 8 months. He was fanning the flames of a rumor that Pres. Biden has Parkinson's. He failed to mention that on only 3 of those times Pres. Biden was actually at the WH, and he also failed to mention that he's the doctor of various people in the WH. That was dishonesty by omission.
3) He said at least twice that Trump was being criminally charged in the Mar-a-Lago documents case for the same thing Pres. Biden did. He knows full well that Trump is being criminally charged for obstruction of justice in that he (allegedly) hid his documents from inspectors and lied to the DOJ saying he had no classified documents. Pres. Trump jerked the DOJ around for 9 months before they raided Mar-a-Lago. On the other hand, O'Reilly knows that it was Pres. Biden who contacted the feds and told them that he might have classified documents and he immediately gave the DOJ full access to his documents. Pres. Biden made NO attempt to hide, conceal, lie or obstruct.
4) O'Reilly repeatedly called the recent immigration bill "the Schumer bill" never mentioning that conservative Senator Lankford (sp?) from Oklahoma played a key role in negotiating and presenting the bill. Not exactly untrue, but it was dishonest by omission. He said it was a terrible bill (even though it ended catch-and-release, made amnesty much harder to claim, and greatly expedited hearings on amnesty), but let it slip that he didn’t want the immigration issue removed from the presidential campaign.
5) He gave his idea for gun control measures (some of which were good), but then said that the 50 states would have to enact them because the 2nd A. prevents the federal government from enacting them. That's utter BS! The 2nd A. equally restricts state governments and the federal government
6) He rationalized then Pres. Trump raising the national debt by $7. 8 Trillion by saying "covid covid covid." He knows full well that covid was not a factor until Trump’s final year in office and that the national deficit ballooned almost immediately after the tax cut of 2017.
7) In response to a questioner, he said that there's no evidence that, if elected in 2024, Trump would try to get rid of Obamacare because he did not do so during his first term. O'Reilly knows that then President Trump gleefully signed a bill killing the so-called Health Care Mandate to Obamacare and that, but for then Sen. McCain's "no vote," then President Trump was poised to sign a bill (that he himself lobbied in favor of) completely killing Obamacare.
8) On News Nation (10/1), O’Reilly called Hillary Clinton an “election denier,” tacitly comparing her to Trump’s election denial. O’Reilly knows that on the morning after the 2016 election, Hillary made a congratulatory call to Trump and gave a concession speech that very same morning. Although on a later occasion or two she implied that the Russian disinformation campaign cost her the election and although on one or two later occasions she unfortunately called President Trump an illegitimate president, there is no comparison whatsoever to the election denial of then President Trump.
8) Early in 2009, when President Obama was signing into law spending measures designed to save the U. S. economy from falling off a cliff, Bill O’Reilly had several anti-Obamaites on his shows (yes, plural). After they ranted about how these measures were counterproductive, O’Reilly said “Surely President Obama knows these measures are hurting the country, why do you think he passes them?” If not an exact quote, close enough. Only Brit Hume had the decency to tell O’Reilly what O’Reilly already knew, i. e. that President Obama did think these measures were helpful to the country pursuant to Keynesian economics, a mainstream economic approach used by both Republicans and Democrats. NOTE: O’Reilly didn’t say “Surely the Congressmen who passed these measure know that they’re damaging the nation,” he acted as if President Obama alone was responsible for them. Of course, he was inviting his guests to say that President Obama was intentionally hurting the nation. He was not only being EXTREMELY disingenuous, he was, in effect, encouraging his listeners to hate President Obama. And he repeatedly rants against all the hate in our politics!
9) On more than one occasion, Mr. O’Reilly told his viewers that Miss Hutchinson (sp?) testified as to what Trump did inside a presidential vehicle on 01/06/24. That was NOT her testimony! She testified as what she heard someone say Trump did inside a presidential vehicle on 01/06/24. That's a real difference.
10) He said that Hunter Biden did the same thing as a celebrity (I forget his name) but was not charged until the feds were pressured into it. The celebrity went to prison for tax evasion. But that is false. Hunter paid his back taxes, penalties and interest years ago when asked. He cooperated fully with the IRS investigation and had no prior record. That's why he would not have been prosecuted if his name weren't Biden. On the other hand, the celebrity fought the IRS tooth–and-nail. That celebrity did NOT cooperate with the IRS and took the matter to trial. A tax attorney has assured me that the IRS will NOT charge someone as long as he cooperates fully – as Hunter did – and has a clean record – as Hunter had.
11) Mr. O’Reilly said on his show that Hunter’s pardon means that he does not have to pay his back taxes to the IRS. I'm fairly certain that if Hunter doesn't owe any money to the IRS. Even if he does, the IRS could still pursue civil remedies such as putting a lien on his bank accounts or intercepting payments from his clients. The SCOTUS ruled that the presidential pardon power does not extend to civil cases or civil remedies.
12) Mr. O’Reilly claims that the Dobbs decision holds that making any federal law regarding abortion rights is illegal. The Dobbs decision held that there is no constitutional right to abortion. The decision did NOT hold that making a federal law regarding abortion rights (or lack thereof) is "illegal.”
13) Mr. O’Reilly claims that the Mueller report was a waste. Although the investigation could not find instances of actual collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, It documented scores of unilateral contacts Russia made with the Trump campaign. These contacts were met by the Trump campaign with open arms or, as Don, Jr. put it, "I love it." The overhype regarding "Russian collusion" is an entirely separate issue and did not originate from anyone on the Mueller team. The hype was made by politicians and was reportedly based on a classified briefing.
14) Mr. O’Reilly claimed that Sec. Clinton is an “election denier,” in the context of comparing her to Trump’s election denial. Sec. Clinton gave her concession speech the morning after election day and, on the same day, called Trump to congratulate him. She never said that the vote count was fraudulent. She never said that the dead voted for Trump en masse. She never said that non-citizens voted en masse for Trump. She never said that people voted more than once for Trump en masse. She did make some after-the-fact noise about her defeat being due to Russian disinformation and James Comey's and Peter Strozk's October surprise - something I agree with. And at some point later on, she did unfortunately say that then Pres. Trump was an illegitimate president. But that's a far cry from Sec. Clinton whipping up a post-election "stop the steal" movement under the guise that if the votes were honestly counted and that if people did not fraudulently vote for Trump en masse she would have won. She did not whip up and oversee a riot at the nation’s capital to try to stop the electoral count.
15) Mr. O’Reilly regularly says everything on his show is fact-based. He commonly accuses politicians of hating Trump and others without offering any evidence. Passionately opposing someone’s policies or statements isn’t necessarily a result of hate, however. On the other hand, hate is a heavy visceral emotion. O’Reilly makes vile comments about - for example – President Biden but insists that he doesn’t hate him. Really?
These are just a few examples. I see at least one example on almost every episode of his show.
I watch Mr. O'Reilly's show regularly. It can be thought provoking and informative. But anyone watching MUST keep their critical thinking in gear.
What would you think if someone you knew repeatedly and gratuitously tells you that he's honest and everything he tells you unbiased and fact-based? He's playing you. I think he might even believe what he says.
The validity of the so-called horseshoe theory is that those on the extremes tend to strongly believe that the ends (assuming they're politically correct) justify the means, and that any resulting from the means is subordinate. Those toward the middle accept the primacy of process, and tacitly believe that any harm in the ends should be minimized but is nonetheless subordinate.
Hmmm, maybe, but not completely true. Those towards the middle maybe not necessarily accept the " primary of process," as you call it, totally or completely. That is an assumption.
It's almost by definition. Here, I was talking about American politics. Those who are more moderate - i.e. more toward the center - support the system in general, with some reforms. Our system of governance is process-oriented. I don't see how you can interpret the COTUS any other way. Even the substantive rights granted by the COTUS are such as to potentially influence the system and not political ends. If I'm wrong on this, let me know.
The validity of the so-called horseshoe theory is that those on the extremes tend to strongly believe that the ends (assuming they're politically correct) justify the means, and that any resulting from the means is subordinate. Those toward the middle accept the primacy of process, and tacitly believe that any harm in the ends should be minimized but is nonetheless subordinate.
It's actually amazing that the Capitol Police showed as much restraint as they did, and did not shoot many more of the rioters, many of whom would have richly deserved it. You are not "expressing your opinion" by smashing windows and breaking thru barricades, while calling for the VPOTUS to be hung.
Bernie, like your friend Bill O. states, "people believe what they want to believe." Even with the facts presented. Narrow- mindedness.
<Bill O. states, "people believe what they want to believe." >
True, and that's what Mr. O'Reilly frequently does.
Please,give an example or two. Thanks.
I was beginning to think no one would call me on this. Here’s 15.
1) Mr. O’Reilly claimed the SCOTUS ruled that a baker could not be compelled to specifically design a cake for a gay wedding if it violated his religious beliefs. So far OK. But then he said that a baker can't refuse a gay person from buying a cake on display and that, if he did, "he'd go to jail." That's NOT a criminal violation.
2) He said that a neurologist specializing in Parkinson's Disease visited the WH 8 times in 8 months. He was fanning the flames of a rumor that Pres. Biden has Parkinson's. He failed to mention that on only 3 of those times Pres. Biden was actually at the WH, and he also failed to mention that he's the doctor of various people in the WH. That was dishonesty by omission.
3) He said at least twice that Trump was being criminally charged in the Mar-a-Lago documents case for the same thing Pres. Biden did. He knows full well that Trump is being criminally charged for obstruction of justice in that he (allegedly) hid his documents from inspectors and lied to the DOJ saying he had no classified documents. Pres. Trump jerked the DOJ around for 9 months before they raided Mar-a-Lago. On the other hand, O'Reilly knows that it was Pres. Biden who contacted the feds and told them that he might have classified documents and he immediately gave the DOJ full access to his documents. Pres. Biden made NO attempt to hide, conceal, lie or obstruct.
4) O'Reilly repeatedly called the recent immigration bill "the Schumer bill" never mentioning that conservative Senator Lankford (sp?) from Oklahoma played a key role in negotiating and presenting the bill. Not exactly untrue, but it was dishonest by omission. He said it was a terrible bill (even though it ended catch-and-release, made amnesty much harder to claim, and greatly expedited hearings on amnesty), but let it slip that he didn’t want the immigration issue removed from the presidential campaign.
5) He gave his idea for gun control measures (some of which were good), but then said that the 50 states would have to enact them because the 2nd A. prevents the federal government from enacting them. That's utter BS! The 2nd A. equally restricts state governments and the federal government
6) He rationalized then Pres. Trump raising the national debt by $7. 8 Trillion by saying "covid covid covid." He knows full well that covid was not a factor until Trump’s final year in office and that the national deficit ballooned almost immediately after the tax cut of 2017.
7) In response to a questioner, he said that there's no evidence that, if elected in 2024, Trump would try to get rid of Obamacare because he did not do so during his first term. O'Reilly knows that then President Trump gleefully signed a bill killing the so-called Health Care Mandate to Obamacare and that, but for then Sen. McCain's "no vote," then President Trump was poised to sign a bill (that he himself lobbied in favor of) completely killing Obamacare.
8) On News Nation (10/1), O’Reilly called Hillary Clinton an “election denier,” tacitly comparing her to Trump’s election denial. O’Reilly knows that on the morning after the 2016 election, Hillary made a congratulatory call to Trump and gave a concession speech that very same morning. Although on a later occasion or two she implied that the Russian disinformation campaign cost her the election and although on one or two later occasions she unfortunately called President Trump an illegitimate president, there is no comparison whatsoever to the election denial of then President Trump.
8) Early in 2009, when President Obama was signing into law spending measures designed to save the U. S. economy from falling off a cliff, Bill O’Reilly had several anti-Obamaites on his shows (yes, plural). After they ranted about how these measures were counterproductive, O’Reilly said “Surely President Obama knows these measures are hurting the country, why do you think he passes them?” If not an exact quote, close enough. Only Brit Hume had the decency to tell O’Reilly what O’Reilly already knew, i. e. that President Obama did think these measures were helpful to the country pursuant to Keynesian economics, a mainstream economic approach used by both Republicans and Democrats. NOTE: O’Reilly didn’t say “Surely the Congressmen who passed these measure know that they’re damaging the nation,” he acted as if President Obama alone was responsible for them. Of course, he was inviting his guests to say that President Obama was intentionally hurting the nation. He was not only being EXTREMELY disingenuous, he was, in effect, encouraging his listeners to hate President Obama. And he repeatedly rants against all the hate in our politics!
9) On more than one occasion, Mr. O’Reilly told his viewers that Miss Hutchinson (sp?) testified as to what Trump did inside a presidential vehicle on 01/06/24. That was NOT her testimony! She testified as what she heard someone say Trump did inside a presidential vehicle on 01/06/24. That's a real difference.
10) He said that Hunter Biden did the same thing as a celebrity (I forget his name) but was not charged until the feds were pressured into it. The celebrity went to prison for tax evasion. But that is false. Hunter paid his back taxes, penalties and interest years ago when asked. He cooperated fully with the IRS investigation and had no prior record. That's why he would not have been prosecuted if his name weren't Biden. On the other hand, the celebrity fought the IRS tooth–and-nail. That celebrity did NOT cooperate with the IRS and took the matter to trial. A tax attorney has assured me that the IRS will NOT charge someone as long as he cooperates fully – as Hunter did – and has a clean record – as Hunter had.
11) Mr. O’Reilly said on his show that Hunter’s pardon means that he does not have to pay his back taxes to the IRS. I'm fairly certain that if Hunter doesn't owe any money to the IRS. Even if he does, the IRS could still pursue civil remedies such as putting a lien on his bank accounts or intercepting payments from his clients. The SCOTUS ruled that the presidential pardon power does not extend to civil cases or civil remedies.
12) Mr. O’Reilly claims that the Dobbs decision holds that making any federal law regarding abortion rights is illegal. The Dobbs decision held that there is no constitutional right to abortion. The decision did NOT hold that making a federal law regarding abortion rights (or lack thereof) is "illegal.”
13) Mr. O’Reilly claims that the Mueller report was a waste. Although the investigation could not find instances of actual collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, It documented scores of unilateral contacts Russia made with the Trump campaign. These contacts were met by the Trump campaign with open arms or, as Don, Jr. put it, "I love it." The overhype regarding "Russian collusion" is an entirely separate issue and did not originate from anyone on the Mueller team. The hype was made by politicians and was reportedly based on a classified briefing.
14) Mr. O’Reilly claimed that Sec. Clinton is an “election denier,” in the context of comparing her to Trump’s election denial. Sec. Clinton gave her concession speech the morning after election day and, on the same day, called Trump to congratulate him. She never said that the vote count was fraudulent. She never said that the dead voted for Trump en masse. She never said that non-citizens voted en masse for Trump. She never said that people voted more than once for Trump en masse. She did make some after-the-fact noise about her defeat being due to Russian disinformation and James Comey's and Peter Strozk's October surprise - something I agree with. And at some point later on, she did unfortunately say that then Pres. Trump was an illegitimate president. But that's a far cry from Sec. Clinton whipping up a post-election "stop the steal" movement under the guise that if the votes were honestly counted and that if people did not fraudulently vote for Trump en masse she would have won. She did not whip up and oversee a riot at the nation’s capital to try to stop the electoral count.
15) Mr. O’Reilly regularly says everything on his show is fact-based. He commonly accuses politicians of hating Trump and others without offering any evidence. Passionately opposing someone’s policies or statements isn’t necessarily a result of hate, however. On the other hand, hate is a heavy visceral emotion. O’Reilly makes vile comments about - for example – President Biden but insists that he doesn’t hate him. Really?
These are just a few examples. I see at least one example on almost every episode of his show.
I watch Mr. O'Reilly's show regularly. It can be thought provoking and informative. But anyone watching MUST keep their critical thinking in gear.
What would you think if someone you knew repeatedly and gratuitously tells you that he's honest and everything he tells you unbiased and fact-based? He's playing you. I think he might even believe what he says.
The validity of the so-called horseshoe theory is that those on the extremes tend to strongly believe that the ends (assuming they're politically correct) justify the means, and that any resulting from the means is subordinate. Those toward the middle accept the primacy of process, and tacitly believe that any harm in the ends should be minimized but is nonetheless subordinate.
Hmmm, maybe, but not completely true. Those towards the middle maybe not necessarily accept the " primary of process," as you call it, totally or completely. That is an assumption.
It's almost by definition. Here, I was talking about American politics. Those who are more moderate - i.e. more toward the center - support the system in general, with some reforms. Our system of governance is process-oriented. I don't see how you can interpret the COTUS any other way. Even the substantive rights granted by the COTUS are such as to potentially influence the system and not political ends. If I'm wrong on this, let me know.
More like "Irrational primary effect"-- false perception of an association between two events or situations.
The validity of the so-called horseshoe theory is that those on the extremes tend to strongly believe that the ends (assuming they're politically correct) justify the means, and that any resulting from the means is subordinate. Those toward the middle accept the primacy of process, and tacitly believe that any harm in the ends should be minimized but is nonetheless subordinate.
The horseshoe theory was interesting, but I don't agree with your assessment of the killing of Ashli Babbitt..
How so?
It's actually amazing that the Capitol Police showed as much restraint as they did, and did not shoot many more of the rioters, many of whom would have richly deserved it. You are not "expressing your opinion" by smashing windows and breaking thru barricades, while calling for the VPOTUS to be hung.
I totally agree. More officers would have been well within their rights to open fire. It's a miracle that didn't happen.