And by the way, did everyone on here know that the Clintonistas spent more than half of a billion dollars of our money on personal travel during their eight years in power? Most probably did, but I for one would not have known this had it not been for O'Relly!
I agree, he has taken on some worthy causes and his strongest suit which I wanted to defend, is his good heart and character. He allows himself to stray into areas in which he has no real knowledge and takes strong stands that don't reflect any real knowledge. He is inconsistant tho, when he so strongly says personal resposibility is required but then whines when he gets burned in the market. He needs to suck it up and understand that he put his money down and took his chances. Now as Enron unfolds there will be indications of chicanery perhaps, and it is no shame that better minds that OReilly got burned in this. That will be a developing story, and should be. I don't think OReilly wants the government to restrict his "right" to make bad choices in investments, say like requiring an "investors license" much like a drivers license, complete with a course in investing and a nice hard test he would have to pass. He just wants the other guy to be made more responsible. It's a two way street, just like a drivers license doesn't protect you from somone who may get drunk and run into you, there is a certain risk one assumes in investing. Defensive investing requires a knowledge of the risks just like defensive driving.
regards