Bill O'Reilly needs a history lesson.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Mr. President
Maybe he was referring to people who came after the abolition of slavery.

Probably not, though.

No, I think he was on an a-historical rant 'n' roll:

And the British Crown marched in there with their henchman, Oliver Cromwell, and they seized all of my ancestors' lands, everything. And they threw them into slavery, pretty much indentured servitude on the land.

Why let facts or distinctions stand in the way of manufacturing nonsense ?


I love the way Cromwell is called a 'henchman' of the British Crown.

Mmm, just like Tom Paine and Benjamin Franklin, eh, Bill ?

In the wake of the Army's 1648 recapture of the King, the monarchy was abolished, and between 1649 and 1653 the country became a republic, a rarity in Europe at that time. The republic was known as the Commonwealth of England.

http://oliver-cromwell.ask.dyndns.dk/

[Mr. President]

Heh, no-one ever accused O'Reilly of having general knowledge.

[tangent]

Have you read the book Constantine's Sword? The author describes in the introduction about his family tradition that his grandfather was on the pro-independence side in the Irish rebellion of the 1920s (the year escapes me now, 1921?). When he actually visited Ireland, he discovered that his grandfather was not only not involved in the rebellion, but was a soldier in the British army who fought in France.

[/tangent]

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Mr. President
Heh, no-one ever accused O'Reilly of having general knowledge.

[tangent]

Have you read the book Constantine's Sword? The author describes in the introduction about his family tradition that his grandfather was on the pro-independence side in the Irish rebellion of the 1920s (the year escapes me now, 1921?). When he actually visited Ireland, he discovered that his grandfather was not only not involved in the rebellion, but was a soldier in the British army who fought in France.

[/tangent]

A few years back the government of Eire acknowledged the Irish who had fought in the British Army in WWI and WWII:

Officially, the long government silence on the volunteers began to be broken in 1994 when Bertie Ahern (then Minister of Finance) formally opened the renovated and completed Islandbridge war memorial. Kevin Myers commented that Ahern’s presence signified "a change in attitude towards Irishness, in definitions of what it is to be Irish and how many forms of Irishness there can be without betrayal of anybody or anything."

http://www.reform.org/TheReformMovement_files/article_files/articles/war.htm

My great grandfather was a Fenian Brother- but my great uncle served in the R.A.F. in WWII, and lost his life.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Oerdin

I'm just making sure everyone knows what a ******** this guy is so next time we have some wingnut claiming Fox News is a reputable source they won't get any traction.

He's definitely a moronic douche bag, but claiming that his presence as an entertainer on Fox negates their news coverage is non-sense. I mean the NY Times has Krugman polluting their opinion pages regularly, but we don't hold that against the news division.

[Pekka]

Why is it that so many Fox viewers still think Saddam and Iraq had lots to do with 9/11? Because a) they are not watching the news or b) they watch fake news, such as Fox?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Pekka
Why is it that so many Fox viewers still think Saddam and Iraq had lots to do with 9/11? Because a) they are not watching the news or b) they watch fake news, such as Fox?

I don't know, I don't get cable.

[Pekka]

How come we all know and we're thousands of miles away?

COME ON! That's weak dude!

[Mr. President]

Because foreigners are obsessed with American news channels. Watch your own damn news, foreigners!!!1

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Pekka
How come we all know and we're thousands of miles away?

COME ON! That's weak dude!

Well my theory is that many people tend to believe what they want to believe and choose their news sources accordingly. I would not be surprised for instance to find the people who get their news from CBS to be ignorant in any number of areas, for instance believing in much greater numbers that Dan Rather's bogus story revealing "Bush's National Guard Documents" was true. But of course no one did that survey.

[Pekka]

HMm that might be true though.. that they are not turned into something else watching, but rather they were before and choose to watch what they wanted to hear.

Yeah I could agree with that..

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sikander
He's definitely a moronic douche bag, but claiming that his presence as an entertainer on Fox negates their news coverage is non-sense. I mean the NY Times has Krugman polluting their opinion pages regularly, but we don't hold that against the news division.

Fox News doesn't bill their news ankers as entertainers they bill them as journalists. Unfotunately, most of their "journalists" are craptastic hacks who play fast and loose with the truth. They always have and I don't see them changing. for all of Krugman's attempts to advance his view point he sticks to the facts. O'Reilly, and most of the rest of the big guns at Fox, make up facts when it suits them.

That's the difference between real journalists and Fox "journalists".

[Sava]

Originally posted by Oerdin

for all of Krugman's attempts to advance his view point he sticks to the facts. O'Reilly, and most of the rest of the big guns at Fox, make up facts when it suits them.

That's the difference between real journalists and Fox "journalists".

well put

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Pekka
Why is it that so many Fox viewers still think Saddam and Iraq had lots to do with 9/11? Because a) they are not watching the news or b) they watch fake news, such as Fox?

The reason is because Fox decided they wanted to become the "news" arm of the far right. When Bush & Rove decided to start their misinformation campaign claiming Saddam was behind 9/11 Fox NEws jumped right to work and continues to try blur the line. They overtly said it through 2002 & 2003 and finally admited (in a brief footnote on a show) in 2004 it wasn't so but continue to hit at it and make sideways links to it.

The people like Darkstar who claim Fox News, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh are the only "honest" news sources are fooling themselves. They're not getting news and instead they're getting opinions disguised as news; opinions which very often have little to do with facts or reality.

[Dauphin]

Why is FOX news so far right? Is it purely marketing? I only ask because other Murdoch TV newstations abroad are in general sensible. FOX is as bad as a British tabloid.

[GePap]

It plays to the notion that the media in the US is "liberal" with a vengence. That way it soaks up the untapped audience of conservatives who dislike the major outlets and CNN.