My belief system doesn’t make claims – it simply dismisses the claims of religion.

When the religious can come up with some real scientific evidence, then I will convert.

I can gladly say the same about fire breathing dragons and fairies at the bottom of the garden, present evidence and my opinion will change.

And while you try to dismiss my statements as hypocrisy because I am not able to prove a negative, I will continue to dismiss you as an idiot because you expect me to.

Just like the onus is on you to prove that fire breathing dragons don’t exist, right BART?

Or how about those fairies at the bottom of your garden?

But, oh, we can’t treat religion just like any other argument, because, well, we can’t. That would be fanatical wouldn’t BARTLEBEE?

In 1776, that’s the year we fought back…and Will Smith led the charge.

The Boston Tea Party would have worked wonders if biscuits were served at dawn.

When I wake up in the morning, the truth is the first thing that goes down the toilet in my house.

Remember kids…sellouts are always the first ones to win!

Comment by bob84108 — January 4, 2008 @ 5:05 pm

O’Lielly apologized?

And all you can talk about is Bill O’Reilly making a minor historical error in his book??

Comment by gitrdone — January 4, 2008 @ 1:56 pm

You are correct that a recession is more important than a blowhard’s book.

However, it’s not the “minor historical error” in his book that’s the issue (although you’d THINK his editor would have caught that).

It’s his inability to own up to the error when it’s pointed out. I suspect that O’Reilly truly sees himself as omnipotent, and is afraid of imploding if he ever admitted making even the smallest error about anything.

“During the course of defendant Bill O’Reilly’s sexual rant, it became clear that he was using a vibrator on himself and that he ejaculated. Plaintiff was repulsed.”

1. Both O’Reilly and the NYT editorial writer made a mistake concerning the wording of the Bill Of Rights and the Constitution of the United States.

2. The thrust to the TP article was not that a mistake had been made, and it is not all that much of mistake, but Bill O’Reilly’s reaction to being called on the mistake.

3. The NYT editorial made the same mistake. However, I am not aware of anyone questioning the NYT on the error. If the mistake had been drawn to the NYT’s attention, then it should have been corrected. I do know that the NYT consistently prints corrections for the errors that it has made and that have been called to their attention.

4. Bill O’Reilly could not admit his error. Indeed, he still has not corrected his error, drawn to his attention several times by other news media, that US soldiers did not massacre German Soldiers after D Day. The TP article validly points out the inability of O’Reilly to own up to his mistakes.

5. The even broader issue is the inability of Bush and the conservatives to admit to their mistakes. It is the identifier of weak personalities with rigid thinking and lacking in self confidence to review decisions and exhibit flexibility.

Do not let Exley and his ilk to derail the discussion. Keep it on the right track. Everyone makes mistakes, Republicans and conservatives simply lack the backbone to admit theirs.

To make a falacious argument (as I don’t agree with the “life is a veil of tears” that permeates some religious groups, and one could also argue that we exchange temporary duty for eternal happiness) -

Wouldn’t the pursuit of happiness argue against the “veil of tears” ?

(There’s a catchy Schoolhouse Rock song that goes with this.)

While the Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness may underly some of these, Billo’s argument stretches things to the limit. I wonder what Billo realizes that the pursuit of happiness goes back to some dead greek guy.

Comment by shoeless — January 4, 2008 @ 2:28 pm

Better tune in from that start if he is on; he probably won’t still be going after the first commercial break.

Comment by Manslagt — January 4, 2008 @ 12:36 pm

Which brings up another issue which the O’Reillys of the world demagogue, i. e., the false claim that the Constitution is based on Mosaic Law. “Life, liberty, and property”, Locke’s “natural rights” was altered by Jefferson to the “life, liberty, and . . . pursuit of happiness” appearing in the Declaration. And while the Constitution was figured to be the best means of insuring these “natural rights”, clearly the ideology is Enlightenment-based and not biblical. Where in the Bible are these values mentioned?

It’s never a slow day with so much misinformation to keep track of. And while parsing could produce the two predominant interpretations, clearly O’Reilly is conflating the two separate documents by suggesting the phrase is from the Constitution. He later clarifies his position vis a vis the statement/instrument distinction.

Either way, what’s biblical about it?

“[insert your boogeyman here] did it too!”.

Comment by Exley

There it is again!

Seems you can tell just how big an O’Reilly fan is by how many times he asserts that he is not an O’Reilly fan, just before flying into yet another knee jerk defense of O’Reilly.

All of those are genres of opinion pieces.