Posted on 09/29/2015 5:54:25 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
I believe the correct term is “Stupid Irish Bastard”. Or possibly just “A**hole”.
All O’Reilly’s books (and by that I mean Martin Duggard’s books)are written at about a 7th grade level to appeal to O’Reilly’s base.
The old Irish term that my Dad used is good enough.
He was a World War II vet born in 1918. Those men didn’t take any crap or lip from people like O’Reilly.
But he’s also those things you mentioned.
I’d bet that the people he works with think he’s a first class jerk.
Has anyone seen that commercial promoting atheism airing in prime times with Ron Reagan doing the narrating?
I don't know which is more ugly, the advertisement itself.....or Ron Reagan both inside and outside.
He describes himself in the commercial as an "unabashed atheist" who "is not afraid to burn in hell".
Yes, nuts DO fall far from the tree.
Leni
PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE DO IT!
I’ll pay for your trip to NY or wherever that ass lives, and your expenses.
He said the same thing about Jesus.
O’Reilly is a blowhard.
Remember also that the Liberals lead by Time magazine assured us that Russia would eventually win the Cold War and the best we could do was delay them for a while. Strobe Talbott promoted this heavily
It was!
People often assert that the First Amendment gives freedom of the press because the press is objective. That is ridiculous. First, the planted axiom in that is that “the press” refers to a single entity; and implicitly, that is the Associated Press. Well, guess what! The AP did not even exist until 1848, and then it was only the New York Associated Press. Samuel Morse only demonstrated the telegraph with his famous line between Washington and Baltimore in 1844.Further, the First Amendment, far from assuring that a press will be objective, protects the right of a printer to print whatever he wants. 1A does nothing to assure objectivity of any one press; it only speaks to the right of any person to buy and operate a press - or many presses - on his own dime. And it implies the right of any person to read - or not read whatever printed matter he can and does legally gain access to.
The Constitution
explicitly contemplates progress, and in Article V provides for modification of itself to adapt to experience. Further,
- Article 1 Section 8.:
- The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries . . .
makes plain that the First Amendment is to be understood only as a floor under our rights.
- Amendment 9:
- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Therefore, any person has the right to spend their own money to acquire access to whatever information, in whatever medium ancient or modern, that anyone else chooses to spend his own money to make accessible to him. Everyone is under compunction to ignore most of what is now available to him; nobody can attend to even two channels at a time, nor even to one channel all the time. So the responsibility of the citizen - to himself - is to select the information sources he chooses to attend to, for as long as he chooses to.
You could do a lot worse than to restrict your public-affairs attention to FR; most people do. FR scoops TV much more than the reverse. And on FR we pool our skepticism:
The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing.The man whom we believe is necessarily, in the things concerning which we believe him, our leader and director, and we look up to him with a certain degree of esteem and respect . . .
The desire of being believed, the desire of persuading, of leading and directing other people, seems to be one of the strongest of all our natural desires. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.