[egarvue]

I quit watching O'Reilly a while ago, after the Red Cross scandal shortly after 9-11. His already inflated ego got way out of proportion, and I felt that Bill was starting to do more damage than good; he just wouldn't let it go, even after the scandal had been brought to light and the Red Cross' policies had been changed. He's been going downhill ever since. I would be REAL interested to see a comparison of his ratings now as compared to his ratings a while ago.

[Greeklawyer]

I agree, I think Mr. O'Reilly is starting to believe his own publicity. I saw the interviewm, when he refered to his own list of bible quotes, it had the appearance of ambush and Mr. O'Reilly wanting to set the direction and the tone reguardless of what the guest had to say. Frankly, I wanted to hear more about the "stop being gay" issue. Could a person leave the lifestyle? Was this Bennett really no longer gay? Was leaving "gayness" like alchoholism? Specifically, always in recovery? This would have been more useful for an interview than the bible quote ambush duel that was broadcast. Does Mr. O'Reilly personally believe a person can alter their sexual orientation?

[marcde]

Orielly was dead-on in the Red cross situation. The red cross obviously does some good, but the attempted power play with the billion given by compassionate Americans was a disgrace. Every dime of that money should have been given to the families quikly and efficiently, the Red cross was trying to control that huge sum of money as thay saw fit, thier original plan was to hold onto most of the cash for future disasters, unacceptable! That money was given for specific purposes, not to sure-up or contribute to a growing beuracracy. As far as the gay issue, Orielly sounded like a pathetic liberal fool attacking Bennett claiming he wanted all homosexuals to go to hell. In this case Oreilly literally carried the tolerance and diversity waterbuckets. Bennett was badgered and dismissed as "fanatic", without even a reasonable chance at a reply. Noone wants to see a troulbled child without a home. Oreilly's assertion was at least this child had a chance at a loving home, with this I cannot disagree, but there's an even larger issue which Oreilly's moment of misguided zeal unscrupulously disallowed into the debate(?). Once any child is placed in a homosexual enviornment, homosexuality is immediately portrayed in an acceptable and normal light, in effect the child is indoctrinated. No homosexual couple is going to present homosexuality in an objective manner, they will explain to thier adopted child how only bigots and intolerant fools frown upon thier "perfectly normal" lifestyle. Placing a child in a homosexual atmosphere immediately interjects homosexuality into that childs life, no doubt in an exceptable and normalizing way. "Do what thou wilt", it is a free society in which we live, but there will be consequences in raising a generation on moral relativism and a belief that biological fact can be trumped in favor of desire.