BW: Bill O’Reilly takes a lot of heat from my side of the ideological skirmish — he’s not a true-blue conservative, takes lightly constitutional limits on government, is a RINO, etc. My experience? The Fox News host usually hews to the “conservative” or “traditionalist” take on things — at least more often than not.
Broadly speaking, I regard him a philosophical ally in the efforts of God-n-Country-loving Americans to preserve — actually, “rescue” might be the more appropriate term at this juncture — our country. It bears mentioning, the Left despises him with a clicking-hot hatred– and not because he’s their Manchurian-journo, covertly doing their big-government, morally relativistic, down-with-the-USA bidding.
That said, I have my moments when the guy really irks me. He seems especially paranoid about being tagged “a conservative,” so periodically he’ll go to great, rattling lengths to showcase his “moderate” bona fides — when he cedes, for instance, he doesn’t mind surrendering half his income to the Federal Government, but draws an unbudging line at a 51% income tax rate. It’s a gesture toward “reasonableness” on his part, I suppose — but doesn’t impress me. Contrarily, it leaves me shaking my head in aggravation. more
Bill O’Reilly is a bloviating pinhead.
And Ted Baxter was smarter and more relevant. I don’t have cable anymore so I don’t miss Bill O’Reilly.
He has a decidedly soft spot for corruption and lying.
He also give Revrum Al a virtual hand-job every time he’s on.
And he doesn’t seem to understand that “circumstantial” evidence is the most damning sort – just because so-and-so enriched herself at her country’s expense, and sold her office for personal profit, and spouts socialist bullshit every time she opens her mouth, doesn’t mean she’s a socialist, or corrupt.
“On a positive gravity planet, if I drop a hammer, I need not see it fall to know that it has fallen.”
Some things are self-evident: Ambassador Stevens, et.al., are DEAD and the present Administration DID NOT send assistance (except to their assassins) – ergo – they are COMPLICIT in that assassination – Q.E.D.
izlamo delenda est …
I hear that “Well Regulated” argument all the time. After trying to explain it, usually unsuccessfully, I advise they go read The Federalist Papers so they have a clue about what they are speaken about.
“…when he cedes, for instance, he doesn’t mind surrendering half his income to the Federal Government, but draws an unbudging line at a 51% income tax rate.”
Why not. Even at that rate of theft he makes ten times the take home you do.
Too many years of obama’s penis in his mouth has made billo worthless
If he wasn’t a closet cuck, he wouldn’t be on television.
The government is specifically forbidden from legislating/regulating/etc. arms.
Specifically forbidden.
They have absolutely no power at all to regulate what you can own, who you can sell it to, how you sell it, etc.. No power at all.
Every last ‘gun control’ law is unconstitutional. Legally, you have every right to own nuclear weapons, cannons, aircraft carriers – anything. If this needs to be changed, there is a mechanism for doing so: Amend the Constitution. Not ignore the Constitution – which they have been doing since at least 1934.
The bottom line is that the government, as it has existed for nearly a century, is completely devoid of legitimacy, and ultimately rules solely through the force of arms.
AC, you are 100% right. If you don’t like the plain language of the Constitution, amend it—but don’t ignore it.
Bill O’Reilly. I haven’t watched him in a long while.
Mr. Parole, never lets anyone finish a sentence, and then finishes the sentence for some.
@ AC – Along with that, if someone is too crazy to touch a gun, lock up the crazy, so he can’t get to his guns, until he’s sane. Crazy can be speculative, however. Still, no need to punish the rest of the citizens for the actions of one ‘crazy’.
During the Revolution, property owners along the coast were encouraged to mount canon.