Posted on 10/16/2004 8:49:06 AM PDT by discipler
A couple of days ago Bill O'Reilly was in the middle of a diatribe on the Cathoics (I'm not one, but I believe) trying to intidate Kerry. He said, the word "sin" is thrown around way too much in this country. I would have to DISagree. The problem is that real sin is being ignored or blurred into mushy grays.
In 2001, in the Jewish World Review, O'Reilly said in one of his rambling diatribes, "What the public school system needs are mandatory courses in Judeo-Christian ethics, the principles on which this country was founded." Does O'Reily know that it is impossible to talk about "Judeo-Christian ethics" without concluding that some things are objectively right and some things are wrong (see: Jewish World Review August 27, 2001 / 8 Elul, 5761).
O'Reilly is a confusing person who will go back and forth on an issue -- strongly taking both sides -- and thereby make it impossible to know with any exactness where he stands. People need exactness, clarity, objectivity. A study of the "Judeo-Christian ethic" would have to examine the Old Testament problem of moral laxness and relativism. Ezekiel wrote against the priests (the moral teachers of Israel) "they have not taught the difference between the unclean and the clean;" (Ez. 22:26). People need to know the difference between the "holy and profane" (Lev. 10:10). And God says, "woe to those who call evil good, and good evil." The problems we see in America have a lot to do with moral decline; blindness to truth; the confusion of ignorance; and the powerful delusion brought on by self-will.
It is very difficult to tell where the guy stands. At one minute he talks about President Bush in positive terms, and then wham, he takes a swipe at him. At one minute he's lumping the Republicans and Democrats together in negative terms, and the next minute he's talking about the positive things the Republicans do.
In the April 3, 2001 Jewish World Review, O'Reilly discusses why Bush wouldn't bail California out of its economic mess: "That's because the president wants to send Americans a message: You want more cash? Support a tax cut. You want more energy? Support drilling and fossil fuel plants and nuclear facilities. President Bush learned in Texas that take-home pay trumped the dirty air in Houston and the do-gooder social programs that the Lone Star State never even bothered with. For the hard-eyed pragmatists currently in power, it is all about money in your pocket at the end of the month. And it will be for the next four years."
Then in August, he says of Bush, "...he comes off as a nice guy. But I also believe that most Americans are not fully confident that the president will be effective, because he is not exactly a George Patton type leader. He doesn't look you in the eye and make you want to charge machine gun nests. He looks you in the eye, grins, and the golf cart pulls up."
What is it with this guy? O'Reilly is impossible to read. The fact that he plays a little golf doesn't mean he is clueless when it comes to the economy, but that was O'Reilly's implication. Such statements are eaten up by liberal wackos even though they aren't rooted in truth.
O'Reilly talks like someone with two minds, or someone who is on drugs. He is a weird dude!!
O'Reilly changes polarity without regard to the potential around him. He is so unpredictable and contrary, I can't listen to him anymore.
He's also kind of a "Creepy Nerd". You know, the obnoxious know-it-all friend of the family, that comes to Thanksgiving Dinner and does not leave soon enough.
Remember the myth that self abuse could cause insanity? I think O'Reilly's persona proves this to be true.
"I did not have phone sex with that woman."
O'Reilly is a product of the N/E Elitest mindset. He thinks that because he went to and graduated from 2 N/E Liberal Collages(one being the John F. Kennedy School of "BIG" Government) he some how has more knowledge of the "Hot" Issues nad can "Look out for Us"!
So have I.
I think you and everybody else attacking O'Reilly are on crack. Did any of you see his interview with Paul Krugman?
Clinton did go to church 3 or 4 times a year, so he could show off his 40 pound Bible. He is about as religious as Osama Bin Ladin.
Correct! Most "Harvardheads" suffer the same malady.
That's because Krugman attacked O'Reilly personally and Bill is at least man enough to face him man to man and fire back.
I don't think that he is a perv although he seem to have as of late (over the past 2 years) desintergrated into a serial bloviator!
O'Reilly was on the radio briefly in my town and, since I don't watch much tv, it was my only exposure. I couldn't relate and I thought he came off as arrogant, and he never came across to me as a conservative. To me, he's always been more or less irrelevant.
I haven't read the transcripts of the lawsuit. I won't read it either. BUT, my questions is: If she set him up as people are saying,what would give her the idea to do such a thing? I think it was his behavior.
Did you read the transcripts of his conversation with Ann Coulter the other day? Shocking, really. Asking her about wearing such short skirts and things.
O'Reilly is a bit off.
He also defended Bush's policies in Iraq and attacked Krugman's liberal philosophy with respect to taxes. And it he did it like he was slaying a dragon. I have no doubt where his leanings are whatsoever.
I used to really like O'Reilly back when he first started the Factor. He wasn't afraid to take on issues that others were afraid of, and in interviews he asked the tough questions. At that point in time, he seemed like a regular guy just trying to bring out the truth.
It's a shame how he left his ego unbridled, which has brought to the point he's at now. .
For what it's worth, I do remember reading here that he said, concerning Ms. Mackris, " I don't know what she's talking about"; which may be as close as he's come to a denial.
Sorry…brought him to the point he's at now.
never liked the guy... even when he's right... He just seems... so... so....full of himself.
Yeah! Well I know a "crack" you can kiss.
As of the last couple of years, I agree.
Wondering if he is 'taking something' - anti-depressants, or somesuch; because he really is - all over the map; and his judgment or lack of it; in some of his interviews is more than painful.
Seems to be a correalation between that lack of judgment seen on TV and perhaps what is playing out now in the media. That coupled with his ever-present arrogance; is not working to his favor.
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.