O'Reilly Walks Out?

This is an interesting book review for Lefty Molly Ivins' new book "Bushwhacked" and everybody's pal O'Reilly's new book "Who's Looking Out for You?"

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10270979&BRD=1281&PAG=461&dept_id=7563&rfi=6

It's short and interesting.

I'll quote these:

From Ivins - "In the first round of Bush tax cuts, 40 percent of the cut went to the richest 1 percent of the population, those making over $373,000 a year,"

From O'Reilly - "Unlike some former presidents, George W. Bush genuinely likes people and would help you, I believe, if you could get his attention. But Mr. Bush is not a micro kind of guy — he leaves most details to the steely-eyed assistants who will not be getting the Dr. Tom Dooley Medal for compassion anytime soon. The president is not a reformer, nor does he get very upset about injustice in our society. He is a child of privilege and brings a sense of entitlement to his job."

I guess Crazy Bill O'Reilly and I do agree on something after all!

 

Nope, they want to chastise you for being disrespectful to other people's feelings (freedom of speech works both ways, if you want to be non-PC, people have every right to call you out on it...deal with it), they're still trying to figure out why any normal person would need an AK-47 (and protecting yourself from the government isn't normal), and they believe that if we only gave money to what we wanted, nothing would get done.

 

Take O'Reilly out of his controlled environment -- where he controls the cameras, platform, microphones and questions -- and he's just another whiny baby.

 

While my thoughts aren't as extreme as ROXRAN's, I must comment.

Being sensitive and respectful is one thing. Walking on eggshells and being hypersensitive is something different. The lines have certainly blurred.

I'm still trying to figure out why certain people are so afraid of anybody but the government having them? Not to mention that while the AK-47 argument sounds good, most current gun control proposals involve handguns. AK-47s are not on the radar there. My 9mm sure is.

In world history, there are countless examples of where it was the norm. Governments have taken advantage of their helpless citizens throughout the course of civilization. As long as there have been governments, there has been abuse. Keep in mind that without the means to defend the rights in the Constitution, they ultimately are just words on an old piece of paper.

Granted...but do we have to throw money at EVERYTHING?

 

"In world history, there are countless examples of where it was the norm. Governments have taken advantage of their helpless citizens throughout the course of civilization. As long as there have been governments, there has been abuse. Keep in mind that without the means to defend the rights in the Constitution, they ultimately are just words on an old piece of paper."
-refman


Ref...

Just an academic point.


Factually, for the vast majority of history for the vast majority of what we have defined as 'civilization', the concept of a government taking advantage of it's people...of a people needing protection from it's government...abusie of power etc. would have been beyond consideration. By contepmporary standars, whwn we look back, surely this was the case, but to an inhabitant of most of history it would never have occured to them; in most societies the primary duty of the individual was to fulfill your designated role in society...detemined by God, Ma'at, what have you...and those in power were beyond your reproach. As such ot would have never occured to most that you needed, deserved, or would be served by 'protecting yourself' from what constituted government. It would be akin to a believer questioning God's design.

 

http://www.ajc.com/business/content...?urac=n&urvf=10657252718430.17302998361652144

From O'Reilly's employer. Classless as usual.