Posted on 11/07/2015 7:17:01 PM PST by Fhios
Sparks flew on "The O'Reilly Factor" Friday as host Bill O'Reilly and columnist George Will squared off over disputed facts in the former's new book, "Killing Reagan."
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Looks like Trump's style is going to go viral.
I don’t like Will, but O’Reilly was a stinky pig ass in this “interview” He asks questions and hardly lets Will answer them.
Will was defending Reagan here.
Hey Baxter!
You’re a hack, a blowhard and a phony. You’re the main reason I dropped FOX.
Well, and whoraldo, and Shlepper etc
OReally is a self absorbed a@@hole.
I stopped watching Fox when, in 2004, blowhard O Reilly said the Swiftboat Vets had no right to be heard.
This is like the 5 year old standing on a bridge taking a leak with John Holmes. Holmes says “Damn that water is COLD!”
Then the kid says “Yea and deep too...”
As was Bill pointing to the fact Killing Reagan was a lauditory book. The two had differing opinions and methods of obtaining information.
Yeah, that’s about when I did it, if not sooner. Now I have OAN.
How many “Killing” books is O’Blowhard going to write?
Yup... I dumped FOX back during Katrina because Of Mascara Boy and Whorealdo.
Tried them again in 2012, and O’Blowhard finished me off for good.
Only time I’ve watched since was the bloody debate
until he runs out of dead people. he just happened to slander this one.
O’Reilly made a big to do about people having “skin in the game,” as though he doesn’t. O’Reilly’s skin in the game is selling books; therefore, dealing in controversy and salaciousness.
The Killing Lincoln and Killing Kennedy books were straight-forward tellings of mainline history. These were well done.
Killing Jesus was a little off the beaten path but also a fine work. Killing Patton was a tin foil hat piece. And, this one is a hit piece.
He has gone from the telling of history as an objective journalist, into dealing in gossip and speculation, along with ignoring mountains of contradictory evidence.
With regard to George Will versus Bill O’Reilly: Whereas O’Reilly is something of a street fighter, Will is too impressed with himself. O’Reilly acted as though the interview was a cross-examination, and lost control of himself. Will, on the other hand, acted like a hostile witness.
Will was not allowed, and did not make an attempt to present exculpatory evidence. So, the issue seemed to hang crucially on a memo that appears to have not been preserved for history. But, the issue doesn’t depend on that memo. We have lots of positive evidence that Reagan remained capable of fulfilling the duties of the office through the end of his second term, and that he was vigorously engaged in those duties through his second term.
In particular, the connection of the assassination attempt to a deterioration of Reagan’s abilities is purely speculative. The book was supposedly about Killing Reagan, hence, the argument was made that the assassin “killed” Reagan in the sense of debilitating him.
Ronald Reagan is, I believe, is only one of two Presidents to have taken a bullet and lived, the other being Teddy Roosevelt (after his Presidency). To be sure, both of those people eventually died. But, they were remarkable physical specimens and men of vigor, and recovered from their wounds.
Yawn...
BOR is a veritable spinning pinhead.
I loathe George Will but it did seem he was sticking up for Reagan.
Never have liked BOR, and I’d dislike any person who’d attack somebody sticking up for Reagan, even if that defender were a total RINO.
Which Will is.
I hope these two keep fighting A LOT.
Excellent summary. OReilly even stated in the segment as was portrayed in his book that the discussion concluded that Reagan was capable of continuing in office. I’m still trying to figure out what Will’s angle was here. OReilly didn’t write a hit piece as is being alluded to within other comments. He wrote that those in the room agreed Reagan maintained his mental capacity to remain in office. Hardly a hit piece.
Correct, thanks to both of you for adding something of substance to this otherwise juvenile thread
You’re right.
Have to disagree about the Patton book. I read it and many others on Patton, including Target Patton, which seemed like BOR copied to a large degree-—but he did give that book some credit in tiny print at the end.
There was only one thing which bugged me about the Patton book and I don’t remember exactly-—but it was only about the “perceptions” that the sentence left. It wasn’t factually untrue. It was how it was worded.
There is bias in all books and even autobiographies-—everyone has an agenda-—a reason for their work. BOR does use a lot of facts in his books that seem well researched. They are fun to read-—entertaining—and he is an entertainer.
BOR and Will are part of the “dog and pony” show for distraction and wasting time. They are used by the elites to placate the masses—and make us “think” that by doing nothing (watching Fox News) we are doing something productive.....LOL.
It is good to read, though, and BOR does put out some Truth on occasion even if he is puerile and irrational at times.
He has proved to be dishonest-—as has Will-—they are two peas in a pod as far as I am concerned.
O’Reilly’s books are a step above comic books. They are written at the level of a third grader. If anybody out there is looking to step up a few rungs in authors, try out Anthony Beevor or Ian Toll.
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.